Nurses, Rail Staff and Now Driving Examiners

[Ashfordian]

Brainpox said:

I don't really know why I bother with a union. £25 a month and they appear to be accepting a 5% rise. RCN wanted 19% in January but were willing to settle at 10%. Now it's 5% which is only 1.5% more than was being offered originally. Multiple days of strike action for 1.5% is an awful result. CPI was 12% last month so yet another 7% real terms pay cut after the same last year. Might as well keep the £300 a year as it's worth more.

Hasn't the union got you a one-off payment of at least £1,655? While the 5% for 23/24 does feel a low offer compared to inflation, the one-off payment does look a good deal against your subs.

However at some point, a government of whatever hue is soon going to have to make pay awards that starts to correct these real term pay cut increases as the box has now been opened and staff have demonstrated they are prepared to withdraw their labour.

[pingu393]

pquinn said:

Brainpox said:

I don't really know why I bother with a union. £25 a month and they appear to be accepting a 5% rise. RCN wanted 19% in January but were willing to settle at 10%. Now it's 5% which is only 1.5% more than was being offered originally. Multiple days of strike action for 1.5% is an awful result. CPI was 12% last month so yet another 7% real terms pay cut after the same last year. Might as well keep the £300 a year as it's worth more.

Unless it was just union members getting a pay rise being a member for just that reason would be a pretty poor investment as you'd get the rise anyway.

And £300 a year isn't a great anyway unless there's some professional need/benefit to it.

I'm pretty sure my mum said that she was only in the RCM (midwives) for the indemnity insurance.

Striking over pay is usually to nobody's benefit except the union. Employees lose money, employers lose labour, union keeps getting paid. Working to rule is much more effective. In the nurses' case, facing a member of the public and telling them that you can't take their pulse as you don't have the correct PPE might not go down very well

[ChocolateFrog]

Will look even worse if doctors can negotiate something close to, or even better than inflation.

Meanwhile ASLEF are dragging their feet. They seem to have one 1 hr meeting a week on a Tusday morning.

If it was up to me they wouldn't be allowed out until they'd nailed down a deal.

[S600BSB]

Ashfordian said:

Brainpox said:

I don't really know why I bother with a union. £25 a month and they appear to be accepting a 5% rise. RCN wanted 19% in January but were willing to settle at 10%. Now it's 5% which is only 1.5% more than was being offered originally. Multiple days of strike action for 1.5% is an awful result. CPI was 12% last month so yet another 7% real terms pay cut after the same last year. Might as well keep the £300 a year as it's worth more.

Hasn't the union got you a one-off payment of at least £1,655? While the 5% for 23/24 does feel a low offer compared to inflation, the one-off payment does look a good deal against your subs.

However at some point, a government of whatever hue is soon going to have to make pay awards that starts to correct these real term pay cut increases as the box has now been opened and staff have demonstrated they are prepared to withdraw their labour.

I think it is a good deal - particularly if inflation is back to 2.9% by the end of the year as forecast. Question is, why didn't the government negotiate properly a couple of months ago? Perhaps the damaging strikes could have been avoided.

[JagLover]

Sheepshanks said:

Interesting listening to analysis of The Budget they're talking about how many people are going to be dragged into paying tax, or paying tax at higher rates, based on the assumption that everyone's pay is going up 10%.

Private sector pay growth currently running at 6% I think (last three months growth on annualised basis). So isn't that out of line.

OBR forecasting inflation to fall back to 3% by end 2023. Though of course we will need to wait and see if that happens.

[Gecko1978]

JagLover said:

Sheepshanks said:

Interesting listening to analysis of The Budget they're talking about how many people are going to be dragged into paying tax, or paying tax at higher rates, based on the assumption that everyone's pay is going up 10%.

Private sector pay growth currently running at 6% I think (last three months growth on annualised basis). So isn't that out of line.

OBR forecasting inflation to fall back to 3% by end 2023. Though of course we will need to wait and see if that happens.

Already paying highest tax rate what more do they want why not just take everything over 100k ffs

[poo at Paul's]

Brainpox said:

I don't really know why I bother with a union. £25 a month and they appear to be accepting a 5% rise. RCN wanted 19% in January but were willing to settle at 10%. Now it's 5% which is only 1.5% more than was being offered originally. Multiple days of strike action for 1.5% is an awful result. CPI was 12% last month so yet another 7% real terms pay cut after the same last year. Might as well keep the £300 a year as it's worth more.

You're paying for the bubbly at the Xmas party. Plus the £100k salaries of the men of the people that run these unions..

Wonder if those who have been striking have worked out yet how much they have lost in wages, at some point it will be more than they will end up accepting over the next few years.

[Sheepshanks]

poo at Paul's said:

You're paying for the bubbly at the Xmas party. Plus the £100k salaries of the men of the people that run these unions..

Wonder if those who have been striking have worked out yet how much they have lost in wages, at some point it will be more than they will end up accepting over the next few years.

Aren't the union's supposed to be paying strike pay?

[Camoradi]

Sheepshanks said:

poo at Paul's said:

You're paying for the bubbly at the Xmas party. Plus the £100k salaries of the men of the people that run these unions..

Wonder if those who have been striking have worked out yet how much they have lost in wages, at some point it will be more than they will end up accepting over the next few years.

Aren't the union's supposed to be paying strike pay?

I had a conversation with a NHS nurse on one of the strike days in January and she said most of them took a days holiday on strike days. They did an hour on the picket line by rota and had the rest of the day free.

[Randy Winkman]

Camoradi said:

Sheepshanks said:

poo at Paul's said:

You're paying for the bubbly at the Xmas party. Plus the £100k salaries of the men of the people that run these unions..

Wonder if those who have been striking have worked out yet how much they have lost in wages, at some point it will be more than they will end up accepting over the next few years.

Aren't the union's supposed to be paying strike pay?

I had a conversation with a NHS nurse on one of the strike days in January and she said most of them took a days holiday on strike days. They did an hour on the picket line by rota and had the rest of the day free.

In the civil service you aren't allowed to book a day's leave once a strike day has been announced.

[272BHP]

My kid is weeks away from GCSEs like many others.

I found out this week he didn't go to school on Monday and this was not an isolated incident. He decided he could get more done on his own at home and when challenged later he showed evidence of all the revision work he had done that day. He got the talk of course but I am kind of proud how he has taken charge of the situation - his faith in his teachers has gone with these strikes.

He asked us a few weeks ago to find him some tutors online in the 2 subjects he is struggling with. Funnily enough there is absolutely no problem finding experienced school teachers who tutor online especially on strike days. I get the impression that some of them are doing very well out of it at 40-50 pound an hour.

And all you hear from teachers is that they are marking homework till 10pm every night.

[Vasco]

S600BSB said:

Ashfordian said:

Brainpox said:

I don't really know why I bother with a union. £25 a month and they appear to be accepting a 5% rise. RCN wanted 19% in January but were willing to settle at 10%. Now it's 5% which is only 1.5% more than was being offered originally. Multiple days of strike action for 1.5% is an awful result. CPI was 12% last month so yet another 7% real terms pay cut after the same last year. Might as well keep the £300 a year as it's worth more.

Hasn't the union got you a one-off payment of at least £1,655? While the 5% for 23/24 does feel a low offer compared to inflation, the one-off payment does look a good deal against your subs.

However at some point, a government of whatever hue is soon going to have to make pay awards that starts to correct these real term pay cut increases as the box has now been opened and staff have demonstrated they are prepared to withdraw their labour.

I think it is a good deal - particularly if inflation is back to 2.9% by the end of the year as forecast. Question is, why didn't the government negotiate properly a couple of months ago? Perhaps the damaging strikes could have been avoided.

Because the claim from the Union was unrealistic ? Many people felt it was OTT (even if it could be justified) and strikes haven't done much overall to help staff.
Not sure £25 pm union subs is good value.

[Collectingbrass]

Randy Winkman said:

Camoradi said:

Sheepshanks said:

poo at Paul's said:

You're paying for the bubbly at the Xmas party. Plus the £100k salaries of the men of the people that run these unions..

Wonder if those who have been striking have worked out yet how much they have lost in wages, at some point it will be more than they will end up accepting over the next few years.

Aren't the union's supposed to be paying strike pay?

I had a conversation with a NHS nurse on one of the strike days in January and she said most of them took a days holiday on strike days. They did an hour on the picket line by rota and had the rest of the day free.

In the civil service you aren't allowed to book a day's leave once a strike day has been announced.

That's the same in the NHS

[Brainpox]

S600BSB said:

Ashfordian said:

Brainpox said:

I don't really know why I bother with a union. £25 a month and they appear to be accepting a 5% rise. RCN wanted 19% in January but were willing to settle at 10%. Now it's 5% which is only 1.5% more than was being offered originally. Multiple days of strike action for 1.5% is an awful result. CPI was 12% last month so yet another 7% real terms pay cut after the same last year. Might as well keep the £300 a year as it's worth more.

Hasn't the union got you a one-off payment of at least £1,655? While the 5% for 23/24 does feel a low offer compared to inflation, the one-off payment does look a good deal against your subs.

However at some point, a government of whatever hue is soon going to have to make pay awards that starts to correct these real term pay cut increases as the box has now been opened and staff have demonstrated they are prepared to withdraw their labour.

I think it is a good deal - particularly if inflation is back to 2.9% by the end of the year as forecast. Question is, why didn't the government negotiate properly a couple of months ago? Perhaps the damaging strikes could have been avoided.

Inflation going down again doesn't help much. If it's 2.9% at the end of the year the next pay rise will be 1.5%, based on previous years. But the two years of 10+% will have happened and won't go backwards. Makes headlines easier but not my finances (appreciate most are in the same boat whether private or public sector).

I suspect the reason they were dragging their feet was to get a deal that covers both last year and this year. The strike action was based on the 4% pay offer from September, which was backdated to April 22. The one-off payment is to "cover" that, and then the 5% is for 23/24.

[S600BSB]

Vasco said:

S600BSB said:

Ashfordian said:

Brainpox said:

I don't really know why I bother with a union. £25 a month and they appear to be accepting a 5% rise. RCN wanted 19% in January but were willing to settle at 10%. Now it's 5% which is only 1.5% more than was being offered originally. Multiple days of strike action for 1.5% is an awful result. CPI was 12% last month so yet another 7% real terms pay cut after the same last year. Might as well keep the £300 a year as it's worth more.

Hasn't the union got you a one-off payment of at least £1,655? While the 5% for 23/24 does feel a low offer compared to inflation, the one-off payment does look a good deal against your subs.

However at some point, a government of whatever hue is soon going to have to make pay awards that starts to correct these real term pay cut increases as the box has now been opened and staff have demonstrated they are prepared to withdraw their labour.

I think it is a good deal - particularly if inflation is back to 2.9% by the end of the year as forecast. Question is, why didn't the government negotiate properly a couple of months ago? Perhaps the damaging strikes could have been avoided.

Because the claim from the Union was unrealistic ? Many people felt it was OTT (even if it could be justified) and strikes haven't done much overall to help staff.
Not sure £25 pm union subs is good value.

I think that tactically the claim was unwise, but it's up to the unions to determine their negotiating position, obviously framed by the mandate from their members. This looks like a good settlement and I hope it is voted through - and fully funded by the govt from new money.

[Sheepshanks]

272BHP said:

He asked us a few weeks ago to find him some tutors online in the 2 subjects he is struggling with. Funnily enough there is absolutely no problem finding experienced school teachers who tutor online especially on strike days. I get the impression that some of them are doing very well out of it at 40-50 pound an hour.

£40-£50 would be expensive for in-person tutoring. For online it's hard to believe that's correct.

[valiant]

Vasco said:

Because the claim from the Union was unrealistic ? Many people felt it was OTT (even if it could be justified) and strikes haven't done much overall to help staff.
Not sure £25 pm union subs is good value.

And many said that it’s a negotiation. Had the unions gone in at 6%, do you think they’d have got 5? The lowest banded workers will get over 10% plus all staff get a one off ‘bonus’ (for want of a better word) which wasn’t previously on the table. That’s a win for the lowest paid.

If it helps retention then how is that not helping existing staff and the nhs in general? They’ve got an extra 1.5% over the initial offer which will be compounded as years go by and will outstrip what was lost on strikes.

[Ashfordian]

S600BSB said:

Vasco said:

S600BSB said:

Ashfordian said:

Brainpox said:

I don't really know why I bother with a union. £25 a month and they appear to be accepting a 5% rise. RCN wanted 19% in January but were willing to settle at 10%. Now it's 5% which is only 1.5% more than was being offered originally. Multiple days of strike action for 1.5% is an awful result. CPI was 12% last month so yet another 7% real terms pay cut after the same last year. Might as well keep the £300 a year as it's worth more.

Hasn't the union got you a one-off payment of at least £1,655? While the 5% for 23/24 does feel a low offer compared to inflation, the one-off payment does look a good deal against your subs.

However at some point, a government of whatever hue is soon going to have to make pay awards that starts to correct these real term pay cut increases as the box has now been opened and staff have demonstrated they are prepared to withdraw their labour.

I think it is a good deal - particularly if inflation is back to 2.9% by the end of the year as forecast. Question is, why didn't the government negotiate properly a couple of months ago? Perhaps the damaging strikes could have been avoided.

Because the claim from the Union was unrealistic ? Many people felt it was OTT (even if it could be justified) and strikes haven't done much overall to help staff.
Not sure £25 pm union subs is good value.

I think that tactically the claim was unwise, but it's up to the unions to determine their negotiating position, obviously framed by the mandate from their members. This looks like a good settlement and I hope it is voted through - and fully funded by the govt from new money.

It was obvious that the initial union claim was a negotiating position. However I see it as 'a shot across the bow of the government' highlighting how much their wages have fallen behind. Now that they have shown that they will withdraw their labour, this will be in the minds when future pay awards are given.

Personally I'm expecting more strikes this time next year if the 2024 pay award takes the piss! However I expect that will achieve a much swifter resolution as we will be in the build up to the General Election.

[Vasco]

valiant said:

Vasco said:

Because the claim from the Union was unrealistic ? Many people felt it was OTT (even if it could be justified) and strikes haven't done much overall to help staff.
Not sure £25 pm union subs is good value.

And many said that it’s a negotiation. Had the unions gone in at 6%, do you think they’d have got 5? The lowest banded workers will get over 10% plus all staff get a one off ‘bonus’ (for want of a better word) which wasn’t previously on the table. That’s a win for the lowest paid.

If it helps retention then how is that not helping existing staff and the nhs in general? They’ve got an extra 1.5% over the initial offer which will be compounded as years go by and will outstrip what was lost on strikes.

Not sure why you raise the issue of staff retention, I never mentioned it.

[272BHP]

Sheepshanks said:

£40-£50 would be expensive for in-person tutoring. For online it's hard to believe that's correct.

Seems pretty standard for what I have seen.

Sure you can get a spotty kid just out of school for 20 quid but if you want say a head of department with 20 years teaching experience then 40-50 is the going rate.