Royal Fleet Auxiliary to go on strike
Discussion
Wow, Labour haven’t been in power a month yet and those 1970s vibes are already back. Unions taking it in turn to strike; Beer and sandwiches at number 10 etc. Embrace the inflation.
Once Miliband’s idiotic Net Zero nonsense kicks in, we’ll have the 3 day week back as well.
Maybe we can get dangerously high slides and swings back again to depussify the youth.
Once Miliband’s idiotic Net Zero nonsense kicks in, we’ll have the 3 day week back as well.
Maybe we can get dangerously high slides and swings back again to depussify the youth.
I know a few chaps in the RFA.
This isn’t a cash grab, nor is it some left agitation.
These are proud professionals who serve their country as much as many in the armed forces who have been the brunt of a lot of overt cuts and stealth cuts, degredation of T&C’s.
People serving as ‘acting rank’ rather than ‘substantive rank’ sometimes for years, so that the RFA gets their talents on board but their leave pay & pensions are paid at a junior rank. Frankly just being messed about & lied to.
They have rightly had enough & should either be rolled into the RN proper or paid according to their crewing agreements as any other Merchant Navy officer would be.
I’m MN, if my company messes me about I walk to a competitor.
The RFA exists in a weird limbo.
It would be like the RAF inflight refuelling fleet were employed and paid like civilians but subject ti military discipline.
Or if Eddy Stobarts was the RLC.
It may seem petty to an outsider but they have a point, and it’s been brewing for years.
This isn’t a cash grab, nor is it some left agitation.
These are proud professionals who serve their country as much as many in the armed forces who have been the brunt of a lot of overt cuts and stealth cuts, degredation of T&C’s.
People serving as ‘acting rank’ rather than ‘substantive rank’ sometimes for years, so that the RFA gets their talents on board but their leave pay & pensions are paid at a junior rank. Frankly just being messed about & lied to.
They have rightly had enough & should either be rolled into the RN proper or paid according to their crewing agreements as any other Merchant Navy officer would be.
I’m MN, if my company messes me about I walk to a competitor.
The RFA exists in a weird limbo.
It would be like the RAF inflight refuelling fleet were employed and paid like civilians but subject ti military discipline.
Or if Eddy Stobarts was the RLC.
It may seem petty to an outsider but they have a point, and it’s been brewing for years.
Looks like the standard PH prescription is applicable - contract in Dubai for a few years and return to multiple passive income streams.
If they're uninterested in doing that then they should be thankful to get any money at all for such a lack of get up and go, even if it's worth 30% less than a decade and a half ago.
Other than silly council heads and NHS managers airdropped from private industry, I wonder if there's any public sector employee who hasn't wound up involuntarily subsidising the government with ever-dwindling rates of real pay.
If they're uninterested in doing that then they should be thankful to get any money at all for such a lack of get up and go, even if it's worth 30% less than a decade and a half ago.
Other than silly council heads and NHS managers airdropped from private industry, I wonder if there's any public sector employee who hasn't wound up involuntarily subsidising the government with ever-dwindling rates of real pay.
Beati Dogu said:
Wow, Labour haven’t been in power a month yet and those 1970s vibes are already back. Unions taking it in turn to strike; Beer and sandwiches at number 10 etc. Embrace the inflation.
Once Miliband’s idiotic Net Zero nonsense kicks in, we’ll have the 3 day week back as well.
Maybe we can get dangerously high slides and swings back again to depussify the youth.
It is a pity history isn't taught in schools in the UK. The 1970s strikes were caused by Labour trying to impose wage caps in an effort to turn the tide of inflation unleashed in large part by the Heath government and the disastrous "Barber Boom."\Once Miliband’s idiotic Net Zero nonsense kicks in, we’ll have the 3 day week back as well.
Maybe we can get dangerously high slides and swings back again to depussify the youth.
As for the power of the unions, it was Labour in 1969 who had proposed sweeping changes to union law; Heath abandoned them when he took office. Thatcher later claimed credit for enacting them (Labour had been unable to do so because of having no working majority).
I know Saachi and Saachi did a very good job of changing that narrative, but real history books are actually available in case you weren't actually there.
Jinx said:
PlywoodPascal said:
This is the outcome of 14 years of below inflation pay rises, just like most other public sector workers have experienced.
Quite a lot of private sector workers have also experienced this (those in the lower mid roles - above minimum wage, below fat cat) . skwdenyer said:
Beati Dogu said:
Wow, Labour haven’t been in power a month yet and those 1970s vibes are already back. Unions taking it in turn to strike; Beer and sandwiches at number 10 etc. Embrace the inflation.
Once Miliband’s idiotic Net Zero nonsense kicks in, we’ll have the 3 day week back as well.
Maybe we can get dangerously high slides and swings back again to depussify the youth.
It is a pity history isn't taught in schools in the UK. The 1970s strikes were caused by Labour trying to impose wage caps in an effort to turn the tide of inflation unleashed in large part by the Heath government and the disastrous "Barber Boom."\Once Miliband’s idiotic Net Zero nonsense kicks in, we’ll have the 3 day week back as well.
Maybe we can get dangerously high slides and swings back again to depussify the youth.
As for the power of the unions, it was Labour in 1969 who had proposed sweeping changes to union law; Heath abandoned them when he took office. Thatcher later claimed credit for enacting them (Labour had been unable to do so because of having no working majority).
I know Saachi and Saachi did a very good job of changing that narrative, but real history books are actually available in case you weren't actually there.
The inflation was not caused by the Barber boom the inflation was caused by the oil crisis.
The wage caps were agreed (sandwiches and beer at number 10) with union leaders and then overturned by actual workforce who then, led by a number of agitators, overturned the wage agreement and shutdown British industry.
Heath didn’t abandon the proposals. He lost an election on the proposition and Thatcher reclaimed them because after that calamity no one would go near them.
An utterly wretched rewriting of history.
Ridgemont said:
skwdenyer said:
Beati Dogu said:
Wow, Labour haven’t been in power a month yet and those 1970s vibes are already back. Unions taking it in turn to strike; Beer and sandwiches at number 10 etc. Embrace the inflation.
Once Miliband’s idiotic Net Zero nonsense kicks in, we’ll have the 3 day week back as well.
Maybe we can get dangerously high slides and swings back again to depussify the youth.
It is a pity history isn't taught in schools in the UK. The 1970s strikes were caused by Labour trying to impose wage caps in an effort to turn the tide of inflation unleashed in large part by the Heath government and the disastrous "Barber Boom."\Once Miliband’s idiotic Net Zero nonsense kicks in, we’ll have the 3 day week back as well.
Maybe we can get dangerously high slides and swings back again to depussify the youth.
As for the power of the unions, it was Labour in 1969 who had proposed sweeping changes to union law; Heath abandoned them when he took office. Thatcher later claimed credit for enacting them (Labour had been unable to do so because of having no working majority).
I know Saachi and Saachi did a very good job of changing that narrative, but real history books are actually available in case you weren't actually there.
The inflation was not caused by the Barber boom the inflation was caused by the oil crisis.
The wage caps were agreed (sandwiches and beer at number 10) with union leaders and then overturned by actual workforce who then, led by a number of agitators, overturned the wage agreement and shutdown British industry.
Heath didn’t abandon the proposals. He lost an election on the proposition and Thatcher reclaimed them because after that calamity no one would go near them.
An utterly wretched rewriting of history.
Take a look at house prices in the early 1970s. Over 10 years they quadrupled.
Going back to inflation, see what happened:
We can see the signal of Barber. We can *also* see the impact of the oil price rises, coupled with the collapse in the value of the pound - its value collapsed from a 1971 high of $2.70 to a 1977 low of $1.50 or so. That, as much as oil, drove the inflation we saw in GBP.
As regards wage controls, yes, you’ve made my point - the industrial unrest wasn’t caused by some sort of Labour mismanagement, or their cow towing to the unions; it was caused directly by workers being unwilling to accept the poor-tasting medicine being doled out.
As regards union power, Heath had 4 years to introduce it. But the point here is that Labour weren’t somehow “soft” on the unions and Thatcher “hard” - it was a political football. Had the Tories supported the Labour government in pushing them through, they would have happened far faster; it was politically expedient for that not to happen, leaving Thatcher the path to power.
As regards the first 1974 election, Heath had presided over the Three Day Week FFS! Despite Heath’s catchy line “who governs Britain?,” it was really just an anti-Labour approach, trying to lay the blame of Heath’s failures at the door of the Labour Party as (as is usually trotted out) being in the pocket of union extremists.
My point is, and remains, that blaming Labour for the ills of the 70s is decidedly untruthful. When people talk on here of a Labour government presenting a risk of going back to the 70s, a three day week, and so on, they really don’t know what they’re talking about. If we could lay off that nonsensical rhetoric, and focus on the very real issues facing Britain, we might all get somewhere!
Noooo!
Ridgemont - first rule of NPE, is never ever respond to Skw, otherwise you just give him carte blanche to spout off on his particular slant of social history. Your best bet is to either ignore him or just pat him on the head and say Yes dear. He shuts up when ignored, otherwise he goes into full on Reg mode.
Ridgemont - first rule of NPE, is never ever respond to Skw, otherwise you just give him carte blanche to spout off on his particular slant of social history. Your best bet is to either ignore him or just pat him on the head and say Yes dear. He shuts up when ignored, otherwise he goes into full on Reg mode.
DeejRC said:
Noooo!
Ridgemont - first rule of NPE, is never ever respond to Skw, otherwise you just give him carte blanche to spout off on his particular slant of social history. Your best bet is to either ignore him or just pat him on the head and say Yes dear. He shuts up when ignored, otherwise he goes into full on Reg mode.
Well, gee, thanks. I didn't realise it was only a right-wing slant of history allowed in NPE Ridgemont - first rule of NPE, is never ever respond to Skw, otherwise you just give him carte blanche to spout off on his particular slant of social history. Your best bet is to either ignore him or just pat him on the head and say Yes dear. He shuts up when ignored, otherwise he goes into full on Reg mode.
I used to think these fora were for discussion, but increasingly it seems people come here for their own pat on the head and to not be challenged by any inconveniently different points of view.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff