But most of these people will have enjoyed above inflation pay rises in the past, in some cases over many years. So they could, if they wanted to, have continued to live a modest standard of living and saved the salary increase. No one can ever assume that they will earn the same amount of money for the rest of their working life. That, IMO, is recklessly complacent, especially if they have dependants. Having said that, most people do seem to find a new job soon after becoming unemployed, so most people get away with it.
While I agree that people should not expect to earn the same amount of money for the rest of their life, it is both human nature and a recent expectation within society that in general standards of living along with income will increase as a rule as one gets older.
In aidditon, as many people get older they do make provision for dependents and relatives in case of sudden death or injury, but as far as I know there is little on offer to protect against redundancy. The only realistic things that cna be done is to have a savings pot to0 bolster whatever redundancy pay you can get, but figures have shown that this will only last a certain time on average. This may well be sufficient for some, but others will run out of money, fall behind on their rent or mrotgage, and struggle to pay other bills. It all depends on variosu factors.
I think it's strecthing it a bit to say most people find a job soon after redundancy. In my case it took over a year and some of my former colleagues took longer to get even a part time job. I would assume, however, that there are more jobs available in London than Llanelli and Swansea!
That is a cultural problem in Anglo-Saxon countries, and a relatively recent phenomenon at that. In past generations, thrift and shopping around was the standard and old people sometimes complain that young people today just don't appreciate the value of money.
I'm not going to disagree with that! I've always been frugal myself, but then I remember the 1970's with its power cuts, food shortages and rampant inflation, so I've always seen the benefits of saving money wherever I can. The availability of easy credit has not helped in this respect, nor has the barrage of adverts for the latest consumer goods that we are subjected to every day.
To digress a little, since WWII the culture in the UK has bene that when you are young you might struggle to get by a bit, you might have to live with the in laws for a while but as you progress you wille arn more and gradually be more comfortable financially. This all came form a time when there was full employment, and many people wanted and found a job for life with progressively more pay, possibly promotions along the way, and the promise of security and being able to leave a decent inheritance for the offspring at the end of it.
Nowadays, such expectations are unrealistic. There are hardly any jobs for life any more. Young people will be saddled with debt immediately on finishing their education, can't afford to buy a house, and face all sorts of uncertanties about the future. In this respect, I accept that younger generations, and those of any age who are out of work, will see the LU workers as being fantastically well off in comparison.
But I still understand why action is being taken and even if those on strike don't wnat my sympathy, they have it anyway!
You don't HAVE to have an iPhone, or a new car, or Starbucks coffee.
Agreed. I don't make use of any of those. But the bigger point, as economists know, is that if large numbers of people stop buying such things and save their money instead, the economy goes into decline. Hence the boom from the 1990's to 2007, which was built on consumer spending and credit.
Finding the right balance is extremely difficult.
When people retire, or have to downsize for whatever reason, some people then realise that buying all that stuff in the past didn't make them happy and they can manage perfectly fine on less.
Retirement is mostly planned, and nowadays people cna make a decision as to whether to retire or not. The only options the tube workers get will be redundancy or tot ake whatever job happens to be available. The dispute, as far as I cna tell, is about trying to compromise on both the number of posts that will be taken out of LU, and to improve the terms of those who are displaced.
Who knows, some of those who end up earning a lot more may realise that the extra money didn't buy them happiness, but I can imagine that the majority will, at this point, be far more concerned about losing their home or being unable to pay off their current debts.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of a consumer lifestyle, that is the position many LU employees will find themselves in. And, to an degree, it's what the governments wanted people to do, buy their way to a booming economy - so it's no wonder there is a feeling of betrayal, and that is not confined to this particular group of workers either. I felt betrayed that that ****less lending by the banks and ****less borrowing by consumers led to a crash that cost me a very well paid job, even though I did not have any debts and a mortgage that I could easily afford on my former salary.
I was relocated about 40 miles from my old site, although I didn't get a pay cut. Others in the company were worse off, say having to move from Birmingham to Manchester. Obviously I was unhappy about it, but my industry was in steep decline and so I considered myself lucky to still be in a job. That was 5 years ago, though, and now the economy is growing again, we are recruiting heavily and getting reasonable pay rises.
You've hit on part of the problem there. LU isn't in steep decline at all, more and more passengers are using the system, and there is still a demand for ticket offices in the central zone.
Many on the staff side see this as a political decision, with ramifications for operational safety, as well as being a huge concern for the individuals that will be affected. It's made worse by what is seen as a betrayal by the mayor who promised not to close any ticket offices in order to help get himself elected.
In regard to your own situation, I'm pleased you didn't have to take a pay cut, but do you think you would have felt differently if you had lost 25% of your pay at the same time as being forced to relocate? I expect it depends on other cirucmstances as well, as you mentioned ease and cost of transport, journey time, the age of any children, housing costs in the new location and so on, but I'm interested in knowing, if you don't mind.
For myself, making such a move would have been a lot more difficult with such a big reduction in pay. I would have felt that an additional hour of travel time each way would have a huge negative impact on my family life, even if I did not have to pay for the travel itself.
Moving home would have been out of the question because of my partners job and our caring responsibilities, and I'm sure the same would be true for others, especially those who don't want to disrupt their children's education by them changing schools at a crucial time.
Many, many factors combine to each individual's circumstances, but in reality it's not so easy for a lot of people to just roll over and take it on the chin. I slaute the tube employees for putting up a fight, even though I think it may be ultimately futile,
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
So for those that never got such things and did indeed have to suffer wage freezes to save their job and the roof over their head will look on that sort of arguement as a ****take.
Maybe so, but that point of view smacks of selfishness and the attitude that everyone else should suffe rif I do. It's not a viewpoint that I can agree with, but I agree that it's one that plenty of others hold. Even though I was a bit annoyed to lose my job following the crash, it doesn't mean I want everyone else to suffer the same sort of thing. Good luck to those who fight to maintain their conditions, pay and jobs!