Workers suffer record pay slump in face of rocketing inflation

[T00ts]

I think it is pretty naive to expect workers to accept de facto pay cuts year after year, and not expect them to at some point, via their unions, say that enough is enough. And workers decide whether to strike via ballots, not union leaders who mostly lead in negotiations on behalf of workers after they have voted to strike. Union leaders can recommend approval or rejection of any offer but it is the workers who make the decision, and any union leader has to be responsive to what his workers want before actually recommending or rejecting anything. They are after all the elected representatives of those workers. What the workers want and are prepared - or need - to fight for is what matters.

You are seeing an imaginary Daily Mailesque conspiracy by imagined union barons - to use the usual loaded terminology - when in fact they are simply reflecting the growing feelings amongst workers that enough is enough. And I speak with knowledge on the ground from within a unionised workplace, with many friends and relatives also in unionised workplaces, some already participating in or contemplating strikes. Pressure for action is growing from the bottom up which union leaders need to respond to.

In the DWP it is the demoralised workforce who are all openly talking of mass walkouts independently of union leadership. If this continues, their unions will have to act in response.

You were right I think the discussion is done. We are just repeating ourselves now.

[Nick]

As the the top 1% have a quarter of the wealth, and the top 10 percent something in the area of 45/50%. of all taxable income, your chart is meaningless .

The top 10% have almost half the taxable income you say? They pay 90% of the tax!! I thank you for making my point. 

[srb7677]

I think it is pretty naive to believe that about Union leaders.

I think it is pretty naive to expect workers to accept de facto pay cuts year after year, and not expect them to at some point, via their unions, say that enough is enough. And workers decide whether to strike via ballots, not union leaders who mostly lead in negotiations on behalf of workers after they have voted to strike. Union leaders can recommend approval or rejection of any offer but it is the workers who make the decision, and any union leader has to be responsive to what his workers want before actually recommending or rejecting anything. They are after all the elected representatives of those workers. What the workers want and are prepared - or need - to fight for is what matters.

You are seeing an imaginary Daily Mailesque conspiracy by imagined union barons - to use the usual loaded terminology - when in fact they are simply reflecting the growing feelings amongst workers that enough is enough. And I speak with knowledge on the ground from within a unionised workplace, with many friends and relatives also in unionised workplaces, some already participating in or contemplating strikes. Pressure for action is growing from the bottom up which union leaders need to respond to. 

In the DWP it is the demoralised workforce who are all openly talking of mass walkouts independently of union leadership. If this continues, their unions will have to act in response.

[Nick]

There are still many customers who refuse to use them which is why most stores cannot do what they'd like and switch to them entirely. The first store that does will lose a huge chunk of it's customer baseto rivals, and they know it. So they are engaged in a process of gradually weaning customers onto using them, a process that will take a fair few years.

For those of us in the know, it is also understood that self service checkouts are not really any money saving panacea. Yes they require less manpower per checkout. But people spend much more time getting through them because they tend to be far slower because they have to do it all themselves. This considerably reduces the man hours per custiomer transaction gain. Then there is the fact that such checkouts tend to be a shoplifters paradise and any savings on staffing tend to be cancelled out by increases in so-called "wastage", mainly due to greatly increased levels of theft. So the financial incentive to go down this route is far less than you might think.

And many seem to think that all we do is sit on checkouts and that if such roles disappeared we'd all be out of a job. But the fact is that there are many other roles in supermarkets and only a relatively small minority of staff man checkouts at any one time. I for example also work in the petrol station, collect trolleys, stack shelves, check dates, and undertake stock control tasks. I actually spend the majority of my working time not sitting on a checkout. Any need to cut hours due to some roles disappearing tend to be achieved initially just by reining back on the overtime, then letting natural wastage shrink the workforce. Staff turnover in retail is very high so people are constantly being taken on just to replace those leaving. In effect all they ever have to do to reduce staffing levels is stop hiring for a while and the size of the workforce shrinks quite quickly, with overtime cuts perhaps for a short time until it does so.

And you don't think all stores will do it together same as they price check to keep prices high. 

[B0ycey]

I think it is pretty naive to believe that about Union leaders.

Believe what? My father was one. He didn't take a penny out of it and his wages matched those he represented. Since Thatcher all votes are secret. He is now retired so I don't know the entire ins and outs of what goes on but I expect it is the same. The Union leader will go in asking what he members ask for in wages, the CEO then gives them an offer and the members then vote on that. At no stage does the Union leader make a decision.

[T00ts]

I think you need to understand at least one thing before judgement. The Union bosses don't make the decisions. Workers ballot and make the decisions for them for which they will fight for on their behalf. If workers demand inflation matching pay rises they will vote for it and strike for it. The union boss doesn't force their hand. Which is different to CEOs whose bonuses actually reflect on profits and the quickest and easiest saving they can make it to pay the bare minimum for labor. And that is simply explaining that the CEO will actively go out their way to not put food on the table of their employees whereas Unions will by matching wages with inflation.

I think it is pretty naive to believe that about Union leaders.

[B0ycey]

.I do equate the Union bosses with CEOs, in comparison with what they do. Do they put food on the worker's tables? In comparison with those they represent they do alright thank you.

I think you need to understand at least one thing before judgement. The Union bosses don't make the decisions. Workers ballot and make the decisions for them for which they will fight for on their behalf. If workers demand inflation matching pay rises they will vote for it and strike for it. The union boss doesn't force their hand. Which is different to CEOs whose bonuses actually reflect on profits and the quickest and easiest saving they can make it to pay the bare minimum for labor. And that is simply explaining that the CEO will actively go out their way to not put food on the table of their employees whereas Unions will by matching wages with inflation.

[srb7677]

I do equate the Union bosses with CEOs, in comparison with what they do. Do they put food on the worker's tables?

In terms of pay and accountability they are on different planets. And yes, if and only if they get the approval of their workforces in a democratic vote, they do lead the fight to maintain workers' pay and conditions. In which case they do help to put food on the table. And in any case, if the workers don't approve of them they can remove them. 

Comparing them to CEOs is frankly a clear example of politically loaded ridiculousness. Which begs the legitimate question on my part as to which of us is actually being played here. Because it seems to me that you are buying into a politically loaded carricature. You are not alone in that. But many less financially secure than you are having their eyes gradually opened to reality.

[T00ts]

It is hard to resist calling such statements something pejorative when it is such obvioius nonsense. The unions are simply doing what their members want them to. You need to understand why, in my view, instead of misdirecting blame.

I can see what is happening on the ground all around me and share in the growing public anger, and resent those dismissing the only ones on our side as supposed enemies of the state with nefarious agendas, when most union reps in the workplace are our fellow colleagues sharing in our suffering and anger.

I doubt you know any of us. If you keep spouting nonsense about us and fail to understand what is motivating us then you are going to get a robust response that risks getting heated. If that is going to be a problem I suggest that you and I cease discussing this with each other. Because everything you are trying to say here flies flatly in the face of what I see and hear all around me amongst people I know. We can see and feel what is happening to us and all around us and are intelligent en ough in m ost cases to think for ourselves. To even suggest that in wanting to fight back we are being played like idiots is itself an insult.

Just as an observation in life it is the easiest thing in the world to work people up into a frenzy and then actions that individually they would not consider. Mass hysteria is real, and I have severe questions on just what is happening to good people in the present climate. I have real fear that emotions are being worked on and fear of the future is an amazing tool. I don't think they are idiots at all, but as said, it is one of the easiest tools and I fear that it is being used here. I don't think you will find that in the DM! 
.

Fair enough. though you did attemt to equate union bosses with them when there is no comparison.

It is almost certain that when any union boss enters into negotiations with employers, he is going to be by far the lowest paid person in the room, and the only one elected by those he represents.

I do equate the Union bosses with CEOs, in comparison with what they do. Do they put food on the worker's tables? In comparison with those they represent they do alright thank you.

[srb7677]

This was 2016, I agreed with you on CEOs.

Fair enough. though you did attemt to equate union bosses with them when there is no comparison.

It is almost certain that when any union boss enters into negotiations with employers, he is going to be by far the lowest paid person in the room, and the only one elected by those he represents.

[B0ycey]

How many FTSE CEOs are there, and how many striking workers?

If these CEOs gave all their salaries for this year to striking workers, how much extra would each of the strikers get?

Isn't all this trading on uncosted perceptions counterproductive...?

CEO pay is still a problem, but it doesn't necessarily link to the cost of living crisis given it is a supply and demand issue but still. Anyway, it wasn't lost on me that during the pandemic, the low paided minimum wage workers such as supermarket workers and carers were classed as essential workers and those on high pay such as office workers were on furlough getting 80% of their pay sitting on their Peleton.

The truth is the low paid have had a bad deal for far too long and now we are heading to a cost of living crisis, it is the low paid and not the CEO who are expected to sacrifice their living standards for Ukraine. So it is only right they demand inflation matching pay rises. If the company can't afford that, they should first cut wages at the top. And that is what Unions are calling for. Profits put into wages.

[srb7677]

I repeat, Union members are being played for political reasons by those who lead them.

It is hard to resist calling such statements something pejorative when it is such obvioius nonsense. The unions are simply doing what their members want them to. You need to understand why, in my view, instead of misdirecting blame.

I can see what is happening on the ground all around me and share in the growing public anger, and resent those dismissing the only ones on our side as supposed enemies of the state with nefarious agendas, when most union reps in the workplace are our fellow colleagues sharing in our suffering and anger.

I doubt you know any of us. If you keep spouting nonsense about us and fail to understand what is motivating us then you are going to get a robust response that risks getting heated. If that is going to be a problem I suggest that you and I cease discussing this with each other. Because everything you are trying to say here flies flatly in the face of what I see and hear all around me amongst people I know. We can see and feel what is happening to us and all around us and are intelligent enough in most cases to think for ourselves. To even suggest that in wanting to fight back we are being played like idiots is itself an insult.

[T00ts]

You would expect the leaders of large organisations - especially those democratically elected to their positions - to be reasonably well paid.. 

But as your figures demonstrate, none of them are paid remotely similar amounts to a typical CEO. The majority of those you cite are paid less than MPs let alone CEOs, and unlike many MPs, most if not all do not have second jobs.

And if you can cite a union leader who has recieved a 39 percent pay increase, your pitiful and desperate attempt at whataboutery might have a smidgeon of validity.

Curious that you criticise their pay levels rather than those who truly are grossly overpaid, whom you seek instead to act as an apologist for.

Read my post again please. This was 2016, I agreed with you on CEOs. You have an unbalanced view. Think what all this strike threat is doing to the economy. They won't get what they need. We are all going to suffer as a result.

[srb7677]

In 2016 this is how much they earned I expect it has risen since. Is it ok for them?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/629448/Appendix_5_Cert_Off_Ann_Rep_2016-2017.pdf

You would expect the leaders of large organisations - especially those democratically elected to their positions - to be reasonably well paid.

But as your figures demonstrate, none of them are paid remotely similar amounts to a typical CEO. The majority of those you cite are paid less than MPs let alone CEOs, and unlike many MPs, most if not all do not have second jobs. 

And if you can cite a union leader who has recieved a 39 percent pay increase, your pitiful and desperate attempt at whataboutery might have a smidgeon of validity.

Curious that you criticise their pay levels rather than those who truly are grossly overpaid, whom you seek instead to act as an apologist for.

[T00ts]

You are spouting political propaganda again which you may even believe yourself. The unions as demanded by their workforces are fighting for the maintenance of their members' living standards, saying enough is enough. And the hard left label is just politically loaded nonsense. You are actually increasingly divorced from realty.

Do you actually know anyone who is or could potentially be on strike? My brother works on the railways and is a member of the RMT. Two of my friends work for the Royal Mail and are members of the CWU. Another friend works for the probation service. One of my best friends works for the DWP.

The story is the same everywhere. Angry workers getting poorer whilst those in charge get richer and profits grow fatter, their terms and conditions under constant attack. Rock bottom morale. Staff constantly leaving. Others overloaded with work. Morale at  rock bottom. Anger widespread. The conviction amongst most that enough is enough and a stand needs to be made. The unions are their only weapon, their only means of organising, their only defence. The workers are pushing from the bottom. No strike can take place without a ballot. Most ballots are demonstrating massive backing from workers.

You should try stepping out of your ivory tower enamoured of gormless soundbite propaganda like a Daily Mail bot, about the hard left or union barons or  malicious intentions and all the rest of it and start actually speaking to ordinary workers. Will help you to reconnect with reality on the ground

Can you not manage to debate without resorting to insults?

I've lived through this before. The only ones to get hurt are ordinary people. This action will do the same again. Inflation is not homegrown but the action that the Unions are prescribing will certainly increase it and be completely home grown. I repeat, Union members are being played for political reasons by those who lead them. Find out what their political stance is before you all follow like lemmings. There is no good end to this. They might gain a few pounds but the situation will be so much worse for everyone because of their action.

Yes I read the DM but not exclusively, I do not agree entirely with it either, I use my own intelligence and thought to arrive at what I feel is a sensible conclusion, but those who are going on strike are not thinking at all.

I bet the union bosses earn a lot less than CEOs, and have gotten nothing like 39 percent pay rises. They are also democratically accountable to the workers who elect them and can remove them.

And your straw man argument is risible. No one including me has suggested that CEOs or MPs should be done away with, though in the case of the latter if pay were based upon performance their pay would have been cut rather than increased. Insofar as MP pay is concerned it should be linked to the average earned by all other public sector workers and should be a full time job with no outside earnings.

As for CEOs you seem to be implicitly defending their right to recieve massive inflation busting pay rises year after year whilst attacking their much lower paid workforces for daring to resist de facto pay cuts. This is taking the piss on a grand scale and it will drive more people more leftwards if ways cannot be found to enforce or encourage a greater sense of proportion.

Try reading my posts slowly instead of hitting the roof. I have already agreed with you that CEOs etc are out of sinc on pay. However the truth is that the Unions are set on bringing down the Government. That is what this is all really about. It's all they are ever really about except when the likes of Corbyn are in charge of Labour.