Railway Strike

[Joe85]

Meanwhile, Boris Johnson, a man absolutely adamant he should stay on office until a new leader is elected, has f**ked off on holiday whilst the rest of country faces the worst cost of living crisis fora generation. 

 

Wonder if he’s back at Lebedev’s sex dungeon in Italy - trading government secrets for sexual favours (again).

Sunak, on the other hand, is promising to divert funds from the poorest areas in society to the wealthiest, with Truss is promising billions in unquantifiable, unfunded spending whilst simultaneously promising to target the welfare payments of the most needy in society. 
 

Like I said, radical with poor peoples money. *****, the lot of them. 

 

Edited August 8, 2022 by Joe85

[Bianco2564]

7 hours ago, Joe85 said:

Really? Can you elaborate on the hypocrisy part? You realise that Lynch was elected by his fellow members, right?

For them riding the same gravy train that they so criticise company execs of doing.

You would think with their socialist ideals of all being equal, they would not want to be paid more than the average worker, "some are more equal than others" I guess.

Perhaps the union members should have a vote to slash the union officials pay as it could reduce their membership fees?

 

Not saying the rail workers are wrong calling for action if they are concerned about pay and conditions, just the greed of those that say they serve them.

[Joe85]

3 hours ago, Bianco2564 said:

For them riding the same gravy train that they so criticise company execs of doing.

You would think with their socialist ideals of all being equal, they would not want to be paid more than the average worker, "some are more equal than others" I guess.

Perhaps the union members should have a vote to slash the union officials pay as it could reduce their membership fees?

 

Not saying the rail workers are wrong calling for action if they are concerned about pay and conditions, just the greed of those that say they serve them.

If they wanted to vote for that, they would.

 

They haven’t. They voted Lynch to the role of general secretary with full knowledge of the pay and conditions the role carries.

 

It’s not hypocrisy in the slightest. He’s representing his members interests, not his own.

 

“When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.”

 

Edited August 9, 2022 by Joe85

[S-Westerly]

Total equality is absolutely unobtainable so by definition there will always be inequality unless you go down the Orwellian route of some being more equal than others. Enjoy.

[Mississippi Bullfrog]

3 hours ago, S-Westerly said:

Total equality is absolutely unobtainable so by definition there will always be inequality unless you go down the Orwellian route of some being more equal than others. Enjoy.

Wasn't he the one who wrote "Four wheels bad....Two wheels good."? Or am I misquoting it slightly?

[Bianco2564]

20 hours ago, Joe85 said:

If they wanted to vote for that, they would.

 

They haven’t. They voted Lynch to the role of general secretary with full knowledge of the pay and conditions the role carries.

 

It’s not hypocrisy in the slightest. He’s representing his members interests, not his own.

 

“When I was poor and complained about inequality they said I was bitter; now that I'm rich and I complain about inequality they say I'm a hypocrite. I'm beginning to think they just don't want to talk about inequality.”

 

We will have to agree to disagree.

From an outsider to trade unions its blatant hypocrisy from the union leaders, while criticising wealthy company bosses, they help feather their own nest with six figure salaries from the back pockets of the people they say they represent and care for.

If they really cared for them they would give half their salary back to them, are they socialist or capitalist?

 

I had to chuckle at your quote, I had to google it.

Was it some statesman; Lenin, MLK, JFK? 

No, Russel Brand lol.

 

[MikeHorton]

I blame this bloke he's gone very quiet we need to know his thoughts. 

[skyrider]

8 hours ago, MikeHorton said:

I blame this bloke he's gone very quiet we need to know his thoughts. 

no doubt he will be controlling something 

[Joe85]

14 hours ago, Bianco2564 said:

We will have to agree to disagree.

From an outsider to trade unions its blatant hypocrisy from the union leaders, while criticising wealthy company bosses, they help feather their own nest with six figure salaries from the back pockets of the people they say they represent and care for.

If they really cared for them they would give half their salary back to them, are they socialist or capitalist?

 

I had to chuckle at your quote, I had to google it.

Was it some statesman; Lenin, MLK, JFK? 

No, Russel Brand lol.

 

 

I’m beginning to think your understanding of hypocrisy is somewhat flawed.
 

Lynch and the RMT are asking for a pay rise in line with inflation so their members don’t face a real terms pay cut whilst the franchisees syphon enormous profits out the railway and out of the country. That’s not hypocrisy. Lynch isn’t paid by the railway franchisees that pay the salaries of his members or their bosses. He is literally elected to his role by those that pay their membership fees (the same fees that are a fraction of the uplift required to enhance pay to match inflation) to represent their interests when collectively bargaining with the franchisees. They could do as you suggested, and bin off union fees (and unions) altogether and they’d still be poorer for it (and on significantly worse terms) - but that’s just weird and illogical. 

You also know that the unions proposed to scrap bonus schemes and instead reinvest that money back into the railway, right?

 

You can chuckle away all you like. Why does the fact that Brand said it make any less impactful? Because you don’t like him? Maybe I should quote the person that gave you the incorrect figure for Lynch’s salary ("six figures" - deliberately misleading… and utterly incorrect), since that’s what has you all hot and bothered, Although shame on you for having your pants ripped down by Piers Morgan of all people (the tosser).

 

I get it, you don’t like the bloke and what he stands for, that’s fine by me, but a hypocrite he ain’t. Personally, I think he’s marvellous; has the Tories permanently tied up in knots (they don’t know how to deal with a working class bloke who can articulate) and represents his members interests brilliantly. Although, he and the RMT are avid brexiteers… so there are some flaws.
 

 

Edited August 10, 2022 by Joe85

[Joe85]

On 09/08/2022 at 18:21, S-Westerly said:

Total equality is absolutely unobtainable so by definition there will always be inequality unless you go down the Orwellian route of some being more equal than others. Enjoy.

Are we just talking about wealth, here? Or healthcare, schooling, social etc? Because those things are absolutely obtainable. 

[Bender]

32 minutes ago, Joe85 said:

 

I’m beginning to think your understanding of hypocrisy is somewhat flawed.
 

Lynch and the RMT are asking for a pay rise in line with inflation so their members don’t face a real terms pay cut whilst the franchisees syphon enormous profits out the railway and out of the country. That’s not hypocrisy. Lynch isn’t paid by the railway franchisees that pay the salaries of his members or their bosses. He is literally elected to his role by those that pay their membership fees (the same fees that are a fraction of the uplift required to enhance pay to match inflation) to represent their interests when collectively bargaining with the franchisees. They could do as you suggested, and bin off union fees (and unions) altogether and they’d still be poorer for it (and on significantly worse terms) - but that’s just weird and illogical. 

You also know that the unions proposed to scrap bonus schemes and instead reinvest that money back into the railway, right?

 

You can chuckle away all you like. Why does the fact that Brand said it make any less impactful? Because you don’t like him? Maybe I should quote the person that gave you the incorrect figure for Lynch’s salary ("six figures" - deliberately misleading… and utterly incorrect), since that’s what has you all hot and bothered, Although shame on you for having your pants ripped down by Piers Morgan of all people (the tosser).

 

I get it, you don’t like the bloke and what he stands for, that’s fine by me, but a hypocrite he ain’t. Personally, I think he’s marvellous; has the Tories permanently tied up in knots (they don’t know how to deal with a working class bloke who can articulate) and represents his members interests brilliantly. Although, he and the RMT are avid brexiteers… so there are some flaws.
 

 

Which bit of six figures is incorrect 

 

According to tax payers alliance 

 

Mick Cash, the RMT’s former general secretary, took home a total remuneration of £163,468 in 2020, including £1,432 in car benefit. Steve Hedley, former RMT senior assistant general secretary, had a total remuneration of £94,016, including £2,945 in car benefit, in the same year. Former RMT assistant general secretary and now the union’s general secretary, Mick Lynch, had total remuneration of £118,450 in 2020.

 

 

I'm presuming the less than 6 figures he quotes is take home after tax etc, but you still have to earn it to pay tax ? 

[Joe85]

19 minutes ago, Bender said:

Which bit of six figures is incorrect 

 

According to tax payers alliance 

 

Mick Cash, the RMT’s former general secretary, took home a total remuneration of £163,468 in 2020, including £1,432 in car benefit. Steve Hedley, former RMT senior assistant general secretary, had a total remuneration of £94,016, including £2,945 in car benefit, in the same year. Former RMT assistant general secretary and now the union’s general secretary, Mick Lynch, had total remuneration of £118,450 in 2020.

 

 

I'm presuming the less than 6 figures he quotes is take home after tax etc, but you still have to earn it to pay tax ? 

Do you know what the Tax Payers Alliance is? (Hint, they’re not an alliance of taxpayers). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TaxPayers'_Alliance

 

Have they cited their source? In fact, have any of the rags running these figures cited a source that isn’t the Taxpayers’ Alliance?

 

 

Edited August 10, 2022 by Joe85

[S-Westerly]

Some of us aren't socialists and therefore will never see eye to eye. The socialist paradise of Scotland has totally screwed up education for example. So no equality there either.

[Bender]

7 hours ago, Joe85 said:

Do you know what the Tax Payers Alliance is? (Hint, they’re not an alliance of taxpayers). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TaxPayers'_Alliance

 

Have they cited their source? In fact, have any of the rags running these figures cited a source that isn’t the Taxpayers’ Alliance?

 

 

No I'm presuming they just make it all up, even lynch himself said its misleading when a news source claimed he was on 6 figures which which sounds like political speak for I am but if I count it this way I'm not. 

 

He also said himself 

the total package includes National Insurance, tax and pension contributions.”

 

Which sounds about right ontop of the 86k

 

[Bianco2564]

10 hours ago, Joe85 said:

 

I’m beginning to think your understanding of hypocrisy is somewhat flawed.
 

Lynch and the RMT are asking for a pay rise in line with inflation so their members don’t face a real terms pay cut whilst the franchisees syphon enormous profits out the railway and out of the country. That’s not hypocrisy. Lynch isn’t paid by the railway franchisees that pay the salaries of his members or their bosses. He is literally elected to his role by those that pay their membership fees (the same fees that are a fraction of the uplift required to enhance pay to match inflation) to represent their interests when collectively bargaining with the franchisees. They could do as you suggested, and bin off union fees (and unions) altogether and they’d still be poorer for it (and on significantly worse terms) - but that’s just weird and illogical. 

You also know that the unions proposed to scrap bonus schemes and instead reinvest that money back into the railway, right?

 

You can chuckle away all you like. Why does the fact that Brand said it make any less impactful? Because you don’t like him? Maybe I should quote the person that gave you the incorrect figure for Lynch’s salary ("six figures" - deliberately misleading… and utterly incorrect), since that’s what has you all hot and bothered, Although shame on you for having your pants ripped down by Piers Morgan of all people (the tosser).

 

I get it, you don’t like the bloke and what he stands for, that’s fine by me, but a hypocrite he ain’t. Personally, I think he’s marvellous; has the Tories permanently tied up in knots (they don’t know how to deal with a working class bloke who can articulate) and represents his members interests brilliantly. Although, he and the RMT are avid brexiteers… so there are some flaws.
 

 

No I understand what hypocrisy means and union leaders, not just ML are guilty of it.

 

Union leaders pay is widely available to see online, which figures you believe is up to you but they are far in excess of the average workers they represent. Perhaps we should ask James Robinson who wrote the article I originally quoted where he got his facts from?   I don't subscribe to the Mail, I read articles across all the MSM and yes Piers Morgan is a tw@t.

 

As I said earlier , I'm not disputing their right to strike, why they are striking recently or the fact ML represents them, merely their criticism of company bosses pay when they themselves are well rewarded compared to the workers, that is the hypocrisy.  If the union members are happy with the disparity in pay, well that's their choice. I also never said that unions should be scrapped, they have a place in society, my daughter and son in law are in one and they have just negotiated a deal with their company which is very generous. 

 

I wasn't criticising RBs quote or himself, I just expected it to be from some politician or state figure.I think he is a bit of a berk on stage but I saw him doing a serious interview and he came across as a smart guy.

 

I didn't single out ML, you did, I was talking about union leaders in general and the fact they are as greedy for wealth as any capitalist Tory fat cat that they so despise.

 

 

Edited August 11, 2022 by Bianco2564

[Essem]

Mccluskey was the epitome of the dangers Orwell wrote about IMO. Positions of power seem to attract those with flexible scruples. Accountability is what’s needed. 

[Mickly]

2 hours ago, Essem said:

Mccluskey was the epitome of the dangers Orwell wrote about IMO. Positions of power seem to attract those with flexible scruples. Accountability is what’s needed. 

Sure you’re not thinking of blowjob Boris?

[Mickly]

Just now, Mickly said:

Sure you’re not thinking of blowjob Boris?

Or any of the fukwits that defend him?

Edited August 11, 2022 by Mickly

[S-Westerly]

1 hour ago, Mickly said:

Or any of the fukwits that defend him?

Not sure if I'm a fukwit or not as I don't defend Boris' lying about just about everything but I would point out that so far as I can tell all his sexual adventures where at least with consenting members of the opposite sex. Although quite what they see in the shambolic yahoo I'm not sure.

[Essem]

5 hours ago, Mickly said:

Sure you’re not thinking of blowjob Boris?

My second sentence covered Boris just as well as Mccluskey