Rail industry preparing for national strikes

[DMckduck97]

I suspect that an offer of 5% with a further 5% once productivity improvements are made (DOO/DCO, Sundays inside and less need for RDW - I know this mean MORE staff) and perhaps more flexible working methods) but other saving made like redundancies (both voluntary, redeployment and compulsory should it come to that) in other areas (ticket offices, less middle management & admin). In fact I would say that the new structure of the railway should require less staff overall than is currently the case.

No chance as echoed below, SWR drivers accepted 29% although very overdue and a clause in this last year that got them the RPI, and there’s still a massive debate about how they will operate the train in the metro area. 5% won’t get you anything close to sacrificing those T&C’s

 

[CFRAIL]

I was planning to go on a Rover on June, much needed for my mental health after the last couple of mad years. The rail unions have now made that problematic, so thanks for that (not).
But it's quite simple, we live in a free market economy which, by the way, is by far the best way of maximising the efficiency of the economy, and, incidentally, raising the standards of living of everyone and paying huge amounts of tax for the NHS etc.
It is efficient because it directs capital and labour (mainly, but not exclusively, by means of higher or lower wages) towards their most efficient use.
How does that work ?
Like this :

Companies are experiencing difficulties recruiting train drivers (or any other workers) = increase the pay
Companies are experiencing no difficulties recruiting train drivers (or any other workers) = do not increase the pay
Result : labour ends up (by choice) where it is most needed, because, by definition, that's where the best pay is.

The RMT, or whatever they call themselves these days, are trying to bypass that by trying to grab more than they deserve by massively inconveniencing millions of people. Like me.

You are welcome! Apologies for wanting a fair wage for myself and my family. None of us should be wanting a race to the bottom or accepting a lower standard of living. We all live within our means (generally) and those at the bottom can make fewer cutbacks so are adversely affected. We shouldn't just exist, we should be allowed a reasonable standard of living too.

 

[nedchester]

No chance as echoed below, SWR drivers accepted 29% although very overdue and a clause in this last year that got them the RPI, and there’s still a massive debate about how they will operate the train in the metro area. 5% won’t get you anything close to sacrificing those T&C’s

I didn't say that it was acceptable to the unions it was a scenario that could be offered and if they unions don't like it then it could be imposed as a 'take it or leave it' situation.

This is not an anti-union comment despite what many may think but it is a possible way that the Government (with a significant majority) may be thinking about how to deal with the oncoming dispute should push come to shove.

Saying it 'won't' happen is not advised because industrial action has worked before is dangerous.

 

[Annetts key]

Agreed and I will firmly assign a significant chunk of the blame to the RMT, and I don't think I will have any sympathy for those who voted for it.

So you blame the front line workers then? The very people who actually do the work that enables the whole railway network to operate?

Pay in any job doesn’t work like that. It isn’t just about numbers wanting the job, it’s those who can get through the training and do it consistently to the required standard, who are then very difficult to replace and a variety of other factors.

Pay is such an never ending obsession on here (even though that isn’t entirely what this dispute is about), that’s what all of these threads default back to. Just look at the comments above “train drivers don’t have PhDs blah blah blah”.

It’s snobbery and good old fashioned jealousy, pure and simple. It’s always bubbling away just under the surface on here, and it’s utterly pathetic.

A significant number of jobs that RMT members do requires years of training. Then there is the experience gained from years working doing the job. It’s not easy or cheap to replace these workers.

Lots of people get above inflation increases and rail workers have had that in the past. But getting a good pay rise in the past doesn't stop them wanting more and more in the future.

And in the past, railway front line workers have had some years with either no pay rise (and I don’t mean the last three years), below inflation rises, or have had to trade terms and conditions for an above inflation pay rise.

As to wanting more, doesn’t that apply to the majority of people who have to work?

I just hope when the hard working railway staff who voted for this - if it goes ahead in its full form - see its final results they remember it was the RMT that instigated it.

The RMT as a union is only representing the feelings of the members. The RMT would not have balloted if they did not think there would have been a reasonable chance of a yes vote.

Exactly this. The RMT have been itching for a 'national' strike for years, the leadership will be wetting their pants over this. I don't believe for a moment that they want a resolution here, or think that one is even vaguely likely on their terms; this is simply the red loonies at the top living out their fantasies at the expense of their membership. It stinks.

I can't be the only person wondering how staff placing themselves into financial hardship for the summer is a sensible response to thinking that a payrise is deserved. I appreciate that there will be some TOCs where there are other issues ongoing, but they are very much separate situations and should be dealt with accordingly. The headline here is pay, and going on strike for months on end over that issue simply makes no sense.

Excuse me, the RMT leadership don’t get to decide. The RMT General Secretary carries out the instructions of the NEC (National Executive Council) which is made up of ordinary members that have been elected by ballot for a fixed term of office. They will consider reports from elected representatives before deciding on any action. The elected representatives in turn speak with ordinary members to understand their problems.

What is driving this is the railway companies being prevented from offering a pay increase due to the current government controlling the money/finances. Previous to the COVID19 outbreak, the RMT union and (most of) the various railways companies did negotiate and find ways of finding reasonable settlements.

 

[Gems]

So you blame the front line workers then? The very people who actually do the work that enables the whole railway network to operate?


A significant number of jobs that RMT members do requires years of training. Then there is the experience gained from years working doing the job. It’s not easy or cheap to replace these workers.

And in the past, railway front line workers have had some years with either no pay rise (and I don’t mean the last three years), below inflation rises, or have had to trade terms and conditions for an above inflation pay rise.

As to wanting more, doesn’t that apply to the majority of people who have to work?


The RMT as a union is only representing the feelings of the members. The RMT would not have balloted if they did not think there would have been a reasonable chance of a yes vote.


Excuse me, the RMT leadership don’t get to decide. The RMT General Secretary carries out the instructions of the NEC (National Executive Council) which is made up of ordinary members that have been elected by ballot for a fixed term of office. They will consider reports from elected representatives before deciding on any action. The elected representatives in turn speak with ordinary members to understand their problems.

What is driving this is the railway companies being prevented from offering a pay increase due to the current government controlling the money/finances. Previous to the COVID19 outbreak, the RMT union and (most of) the various railways companies did negotiate and find ways of finding reasonable settlements.

I'll second all of this.

 

[Justin Smith]

You are welcome! Apologies for wanting a fair wage for myself and my family. None of us should be wanting a race to the bottom or accepting a lower standard of living. We all live within our means (generally) and those at the bottom can make fewer cutbacks so are adversely affected. We shouldn't just exist, we should be allowed a reasonable standard of living too.

A fair wage is what the market pays, by definition. That is what almost everyone has to accept these days. If people think they are not paid enough they either :

1 - Do overtime
2 - Get promotion
3 - Leave and get a job somewhere else

If they are short of train drivers they will offer higher wages, and under those circumstance good luck to the train drivers because that's how the market works. But if they are not short of drivers why should they offer higher wages ? The market works both ways. Why do train drivers think they are something special who can get what they want by hugely inconveniencing millions of people ? People who, may I remind you, are paying the wages of said train drivers by using the services, but also as tax payers because the rail system is heavily subsidised. So effectively, you want all taxpayers to pay more tax so you can have a pay rise. And I thought train drivers were on about £50,000 a year anyway ? That's more than a fair wage already, it's far more than I'm on. So pardon me if I do not support your case.....

 

[Fokx]

The RMT, or whatever they call themselves these days, are trying to bypass that by trying to grab more than they deserve by massively inconveniencing millions of people. Like me.

Heaven forbid the working conditions of some of the lowest paid employees that you rely on should have an impact on your jolly around the country that you can afford to do.

Your idea for improving pay for TOC’s short of staff would t work. You’d essentially have what’s happened in the bus industry where one employer increases the wage at Company A, results in Company B staff moving over, so Company B increase their wage and steal staff from company A.

A fair wage is what the market pays, by definition. That is what almost everyone has to accept these days. If people think they are not paid enough they either :

1 - Do overtime
2 - Get promotion
3 - Leave and get a job somewhere else

If they are short of train drivers they will offer higher wages, and under those circumstance good luck to the train drivers because that's how the market works. But if they are not short of drivers why should they offer higher wages ? The market works both ways. Why do train drivers think they are something special who can get what they want by hugely inconveniencing millions of people ? People who, may I remind you, are paying the wages of said train drivers by using the services, but also as tax payers because the rail system is heavily subsidised. So effectively, you want all taxpayers to pay more tax so you can have a pay rise. And I thought train drivers were on about £50,000 a year anyway ? That's more than a fair wage already, it's far more than I'm on. So pardon me if I do not support your case.....

You are aware 99% train drivers aren’t part of the RMT. You do realise this surely?

Your £9.50 cleaner is not earning £50k

 

[Exscrew]

A fair wage is what the market pays, by definition. That is what almost everyone has to accept these days. If people think they are not paid enough they either :

1 - Do overtime
2 - Get promotion
3 - Leave and get a job somewhere else

If they are short of train drivers they will offer higher wages, and under those circumstance good luck to the train drivers because that's how the market works. But if they are not short of drivers why should they offer higher wages ? The market works both ways. Why do train drivers think they are something special who can get what they want by hugely inconveniencing millions of people ? People who, may I remind you, are paying the wages of said train drivers by using the services, but also as tax payers because the rail system is heavily subsidised. So effectively, you want all taxpayers to pay more tax so you can have a pay rise. And I thought train drivers were on about £50,000 a year anyway ? That's more than a fair wage already, it's far more than I'm on. So pardon me if I do not support your case.....

This is not about drivers for goodness sake.

 

[ChrisRS]

I was planning to go on a Rover on June, much needed for my mental health after the last couple of mad years. The rail unions have now made that problematic, so thanks for that (not).

And what about the mental health of the workers, such as maintenance staff who's jobs are at risk of being chopped and losing their lively hoods? Or should we only care about the publics mental health, turn up for duty and take no action to please the general public. The rail union (RMT) is only defending our jobs, and trying to get us some sort of wage that can counteract inflation that we are all being hammered by.

As someone who worked in the public sector for forty years I'd suggest that very claim has been made non stop, the fact that you think it's nonsense is down to your lack of historic knowledge

You've had a lifetime of handouts so you know all too well about that.

A fair wage is what the market pays, by definition. That is what almost everyone has to accept these days. If people think they are not paid enough they either :

1 - Do overtime
2 - Get promotion
3 - Leave and get a job somewhere else

If they are short of train drivers they will offer higher wages, and under those circumstance good luck to the train drivers because that's how the market works. But if they are not short of drivers why should they offer higher wages ? The market works both ways. Why do train drivers think they are something special who can get what they want by hugely inconveniencing millions of people ? People who, may I remind you, are paying the wages of said train drivers by using the services, but also as tax payers because the rail system is heavily subsidised. So effectively, you want all taxpayers to pay more tax so you can have a pay rise. And I thought train drivers were on about £50,000 a year anyway ? That's more than a fair wage already, it's far more than I'm on. So pardon me if I do not support your case.....

Is this thread about train drivers now? Without signallers you won't be going anywhere, even if the train drivers turn up for duty.

 

[Exscrew]

This strike isn't about drivers.
Stop reading the daily mail.

 

[LAX54]

A fair wage is what the market pays, by definition. That is what almost everyone has to accept these days. If people think they are not paid enough they either :

1 - Do overtime
2 - Get promotion
3 - Leave and get a job somewhere else

If they are short of train drivers they will offer higher wages, and under those circumstance good luck to the train drivers because that's how the market works. But if they are not short of drivers why should they offer higher wages ? The market works both ways. Why do train drivers think they are something special who can get what they want by hugely inconveniencing millions of people ? People who, may I remind you, are paying the wages of said train drivers by using the services, but also as tax payers because the rail system is heavily subsidised. So effectively, you want all taxpayers to pay more tax so you can have a pay rise. And I thought train drivers were on about £50,000 a year anyway ? That's more than a fair wage already, it's far more than I'm on. So pardon me if I do not support your case.....

Drivers are ASLEF not the RMT, although some are members of the RMT, the average working week for a Signaller in Powerbox / IECC / Manual box can be 60 hours, obvioulsy overtime, but the gaps have to be filled, lost count of the amount of 'staff' who have an interview, all hunky dory, do the school bit, then after about 4 weeks if training, leave the job, citing the hours, the stress, the rules and regs they have to know all the time, needing to make safety decisions almost instantly, most Signallers are on a salary of about £30k per year, the PSB's / ROCs where you cover hundreds of route miles, is obviously higher.

 

[CFRAIL]

A fair wage is what the market pays, by definition. That is what almost everyone has to accept these days. If people think they are not paid enough they either :

1 - Do overtime
2 - Get promotion
3 - Leave and get a job somewhere else

If they are short of train drivers they will offer higher wages, and under those circumstance good luck to the train drivers because that's how the market works. But if they are not short of drivers why should they offer higher wages ? The market works both ways. Why do train drivers think they are something special who can get what they want by hugely inconveniencing millions of people ? People who, may I remind you, are paying the wages of said train drivers by using the services, but also as tax payers because the rail system is heavily subsidised. So effectively, you want all taxpayers to pay more tax so you can have a pay rise. And I thought train drivers were on about £50,000 a year anyway ? That's more than a fair wage already, it's far more than I'm on. So pardon me if I do not support your case.....

This an RMT dispute, not ASLEF... generally speaking drivers aren't members of RMT, although some are. This isn't in relation to £50,000 salary drivers, but those grades earning far less.

 

[FGW_DID]

A fair wage is what the market pays, by definition. That is what almost everyone has to accept these days. If people think they are not paid enough they either :

1 - Do overtime
2 - Get promotion
3 - Leave and get a job somewhere else

If they are short of train drivers they will offer higher wages, and under those circumstance good luck to the train drivers because that's how the market works. But if they are not short of drivers why should they offer higher wages ? The market works both ways. Why do train drivers think they are something special who can get what they want by hugely inconveniencing millions of people ? People who, may I remind you, are paying the wages of said train drivers by using the services, but also as tax payers because the rail system is heavily subsidised. So effectively, you want all taxpayers to pay more tax so you can have a pay rise. And I thought train drivers were on about £50,000 a year anyway ? That's more than a fair wage already, it's far more than I'm on. So pardon me if I do not support your case.....

Has any bridge reported their troll missing?

Not everybody on the railway is a train driver and on pop star wages! My other half is on less than half your estimate of a drivers wages and like me and all our other colleagues hasn’t had a pay rise for the last two years. With the current rocketing cost of living, we have no wish to make it 3 years without something, not asking the earth, just a simple pay rise would be nice. I’ll let others bandy around figures.

 

[bramling]

Drivers are ASLEF not the RMT, although some are members of the RMT, the average working week for a Signaller in Powerbox / IECC / Manual box can be 60 hours, obvioulsy overtime, but the gaps have to be filled, lost count of the amount of 'staff' who have an interview, all hunky dory, do the school bit, then after about 4 weeks if training, leave the job, citing the hours, the stress, the rules and regs they have to know all the time, needing to make safety decisions almost instantly, most Signallers are on a salary of about £30k per year, the PSB's / ROCs where you cover hundreds of route miles, is obviously higher.

I’ve always thought NR signallers are pretty under-paid for what they do, and there always seems to be vacancies so clearly isn’t not just a case of supply versus demand determining wage.

 

[66701GBRF]

A fair wage is what the market pays, by definition.

Is that all? If that is the case why do we constantly hear (and have comparisons) with nurses and teachers?

 

[43096]

And what about the mental health of the workers, such as maintenance staff who's jobs are at risk of being chopped and losing their lively hoods? Or should we only care about the publics mental health, turn up for duty and take no action to please the general public. The rail union (RMT) is only defending our jobs, and trying to get us some sort of wage that can counteract inflation that we are all being hammered by.

We keep being told that staff are just looking after their own interests with this possible action. Which is fine, they’re entitled to do so.

But I really don’t get why those of us not employed in the industry should care about that: it follows that we would take care of our own interests. After all, I wouldn’t expect anyone else to give a stuff about my employment T&Cs, so why’s this any different?

 

[LAX54]

Is that all? If that is the case why do we constantly hear (and have comparisons) with nurses and teachers?

Assume because those that are at the very top grade, and put in the hours, do get a 'good' wage

 

[142blue]

I was planning to go on a Rover on June, much needed for my mental health after the last couple of mad years. The rail unions have now made that problematic, so thanks for that (not).

The RMT, or whatever they call themselves these days, are trying to bypass that by trying to grab more than they deserve by massively inconveniencing millions of people. Like me.

Nope, those tickets are still on sale and nothing says you have to book in advance either.

The RMT are trying to get the best deal for their members and after three years of no increases is much needed for us. How do you think people pay their bills when everything goes up? Magic money tree? Don't pay them? Make do?

We've saved money at my workplace with a near 20% reduction in staffing but still no pay rise, not a single penny in the pot to give us. Still doing the same work between us and frequently swapping and moving to help out and to keep the job going.

If a hugely disillusioned workforce across the industry feel as strongly as this vote indicates we are can each and all of these people be "greedy" as the press would imply. Or do they want a reasonable increase in take home pay?

You can't do a trip around on the trains well tough taking a stand on this matters more than your jollies. Perhaps think about that when you are sat on a Megabus

 

[Dai Corner]

A fair wage is what the market pays, by definition.

Is that all? If that is the case why do we constantly hear (and have comparisons) with nurses and teachers?

There isn't really a 'market' when almost all in the role work for the same employer or have their salaries determined by the same authority. This applies to nurses, teachers and signallers but not necessarily to train crew .

 

[Robertj21a]

Signallers always seem to be relatively poor paid. Has the RMT not paid much attention over the years to their key role .?

 

[43066]

That's more than a fair wage already, it's far more than I'm on. So pardon me if I do not support your case.....

This is your real complaint.

Just because it’s more than you’re earning doesn’t mean it’s “more than a fair wage”…

If you don’t like what you’re earning you can always:

1 - Do overtime
2 - Get promotion
3 - Leave and get a job somewhere else

And this seems to still not be getting through to you:

This is not about drivers for goodness sake.

 

[AlterEgo]

This is not about drivers for goodness sake.

This should be a pinned comment!

There isn't really a 'market' when almost all in the role work for the same employer or have their salaries determined by the same authority. This applies to nurses, teachers and signallers but not necessarily to train crew .

Agreed.

This is your real complaint.

Just because it’s more than you’re earning doesn’t mean it’s “more than a fair wage”…

Yes it is interesting to read people talk about “fair wages” and the market paying what you deserve only to see resentment that…someone else gets paid more than you!

 

[Sorcerer]

Not to diverge too much away from the core subject, but why is it that whenever there's a rail strike a lot of people seem to always mention train drivers at some point? I'm not talking about on the forums but I feel like a lot of people's minds always shift towards that particular role. I mean already as we see here the strikes don't have anything to do with the train driver's union yet their mention inevitably came up.

 

[Justin Smith]

eaven forbid the working conditions of some of the lowest paid employees that you rely on should have an impact on your jolly around the country that you can afford to do.

Your idea for improving pay for TOC’s short of staff would t work. You’d essentially have what’s happened in the bus industry where one employer increases the wage at Company A, results in Company B staff moving over, so Company B increase their wage and steal staff from company A.


You are aware 99% train drivers aren’t part of the RMT. You do realise this surely?

Your £9.50 cleaner is not earning £50k

The minimum wage, at £9.50 an hour, is no longer "peanuts"
I started work in 1985 at £5,500 a year as an assistant manager at a hire shop. Adjusting for inflation that's about £7.50 a hour. So the minimum wage is now 25% higher than what I used to earn as an assistant manager.
But, interesting as this is, it is irrelevant, a fair wage is what the market will bear, it is not a wage that selfish application of industrial muscle gets people. Particularly when it is the tax payer subsidising it.

>>an impact on your jolly around the country that you can afford to do<<
For the odd year over the last five or so my business has, by some calculations, made me less than £9.50 an hour so I am perfectly entitled to comment about low wages without being hypocritical thank you very much. Particularly as my wages have at no time been subsidised by the government.....

If you don’t like what you’re earning you can always:

Justin Smith said:
1 - Do overtime
2 - Get promotion
3 - Leave and get a job somewhere else

You are absolutely correct. None of which I want to do (apart from "2" because I am the boss already) so I am not complaining about my remuneration.

 

[Moonshot]

Not to diverge too much away from the core subject, but why is it that whenever there's a rail strike a lot of people seem to always mention train drivers at some point? I'm not talking about on the forums but I feel like a lot of people's minds always shift towards that particular role. I mean already as we see here the strikes don't have anything to do with the train driver's union yet their mention inevitably came up.

Drivers will be doing the same once the ballot papers arrive in the next few weeks

 

[Fokx]

The minimum wage, at £9.50 an hour, is no longer "peanuts"
I started work in 1985 at £5,500 a year as an assistant manager at a hire shop. Adjusting for inflation that's about £7.50 a hour. So the minimum wage is now 25% higher than what I used to earn as an assistant manager.
But, interesting as this is, it is irrelevant, a fair wage is what the market will bear, it is not a wage that selfish application of industrial muscle gets people. Particularly when it is the tax payer subsidising it.

The cost of living is nowhere near the £7.50 wage you received then. The average house price has increased dramatically, rent, bills, tax have all increased and therefore your £7.50 you earned is actually more retrospectively than the £9.50 some of the grades earn (and that’s if they’re over the age of 22 which many aren’t!)

£9.50 an hour is the minimum wage and well under a living wage.

>>an impact on your jolly around the country that you can afford to do<<
For the odd year over the last five or so my business has, by some calculations, made me less than £9.50 an hour so I am perfectly entitled to comment about commenting on low wages thankyou very much. Particularly as my wages have at no time been subsidised by the government.....

I respectfully wont personally comment on your the viability of your business model as that’s your business and entirely your decision to make

 

[Justin Smith]

Is this thread about train drivers now? Without signallers you won't be going anywhere, even if the train drivers turn up for duty.

It doesn't really matter who it is about, though I would admit that drivers with their reputed £50k a year are an easy target.
Truck drivers got huge wage rises last year, and to a lesser extent so did bus drivers, but they did not have to go on strike for that. They got those rises because that is what the employers had to pay to get the staff, and good luck to them. That is how the market works, it works both ways.
What is not reasonable is to inconvenience millions of people to try and lever up ones wages, particularly when :
1 - The vast majority of people cannot do that.
2 - The taxpayer is indirectly subsidising those wages.

The cost of living is nowhere near the £7.50 wage you received then. The average house price has increased dramatically, rent, bills, tax have all increased and therefore your £7.50 you earned is actually more retrospectively than the £9.50 some of the grades earn (and that’s if they’re over the age of 22 which many aren’t!)
£9.50 an hour is the minimum wage and well under a living wage.

I respectfully wont personally comment on your the viability of your business model as that’s your business and entirely your decision to make

Inflation rate since 1986 = 169%
I was on £5500 p.a. in 1986 x 169% = £14,795 p.a
Current minimum wage at 40 hrs a week = £19,760 p.a.
That is not peanuts.
Actually I was wrong, the minimum wage is 33% higher than I was on back in 1986, not 25% !

 

[dk1]

Not to diverge too much away from the core subject, but why is it that whenever there's a rail strike a lot of people seem to always mention train drivers at some point? I'm not talking about on the forums but I feel like a lot of people's minds always shift towards that particular role. I mean already as we see here the strikes don't have anything to do with the train driver's union yet their mention inevitably came up.

I think that has a lot to do with frequent London Underground action making the news, the fact they are RMT which is opposite to drivers on the national network, lazy media & the ill informed public. All this seems to make it too difficult for them to differentiate.

 

[Dieseldriver]

The cost of living is nowhere near the £7.50 wage you received then. The average house price has increased dramatically, rent, bills, tax have all increased and therefore your £7.50 you earned is actually more retrospectively than the £9.50 some of the grades earn (and that’s if they’re over the age of 22 which many aren’t!)

£9.50 an hour is the minimum wage and well under a living wage.


I respectfully wont personally comment on your the viability of your business model as that’s your business and entirely your decision to make

Average house price in 1985 was about 30k roughly six times your yearly salary of £5500.
Average house price currently is 292k. Now if you divide £292000 by six, you get 48k. Someone on £9.50 an hour in the present day would have to work 97 hours a week to be earning 48k.

 

[43066]

For the odd year over the last five or so my business has, by some calculations, made me less than £9.50 an hour so I am perfectly entitled to comment about commenting on low wages thankyou very much.

If that’s what the market will bear, that’s a fair wage (as you keep telling everyone).

so I am not complaining about my remuneration.

You certainly seem to like complaining about the remuneration of others…

It doesn't really matter who it is about, though I would admit that drivers with their reputed £50k a year are an easy target.
Truck drivers got huge wage rises last year, and to a lesser extent so did bus drivers, but they did not have to go on strike for that. They got those rises because that is what the employers had to pay to get the staff, and good luck to them. That is how the market works, it works both ways.
What is not reasonable is to inconv

I’ve had several pay rises on the railway. Funnily enough I’ve never been on strike. Plenty of people in all kinds of genuinely public sector jobs are employed entirely by the government and earn a hell of a lot more than £9.50 per hour. I don’t think you really have any understanding of how wages in different areas are determined.

I’m honestly at a loss as to what your point is, other than your obvious dissatisfaction at your own earnings seems to be leading you to attack others and rant about a union that represents many low paid workers…