r/Glasgow Tools

>I think if they get a rise. That limits opportunities and funds for others getting a rise. Do you think there is an unlimited amount of funds to go around?

I think you misunderstand the governance and financial structure under which Scottish Rail Holdings has been set up to operate ScotRail and how public sector entities and their finances operate in general. Which is fine, most people don't. I only do because I audit the finances of a bunch of public sector entities (and companies). There isn't "unlimited money", and I didn't say that, but there's certainly not no money. And considering the drivers are one of the absolute key members of personnel, in a job with a high barrier to entry that cannot be very quickly replaced (which is exactly why we have an issue now - they have been relying on those drivers working well beyond what their contracts say), it would be, to be blunt, fucking absurd to risk losing any goodwill those drivers have. ScotRail cannot operate without the drivers, full stop.

> I think if unionising helped every profession or job in the same way - you would find that the pay for many jobs wouldn’t be so low. I think some have very strong unions & some do not. I don’t think that’s train drivers fault. But I do think that gaining sympathy and support from others can be difficult when they do not have access to the same support you do. The answer of: unionise, strike, etc. doesn’t actually solve the problem.

I would say that the majority of people are in support of the train drivers here. Look at the replies to posts that ScotRail make about it, where they try to blame the drivers. Lots of people quite publicly calling them out on their weasel words.

I am in a profession that is NOT even a little bit unionised. There is no union who represents me. At all. That's a situation that exists for some complicated reasons that I won't bother getting into here, but that's the situation. I can't strike. I can't do anything really except make sure I fully understand my own rights and be a one woman union for my own good. But I'm not so bloody petty as to resent others for having that representation and power.

> I mean a wider society strike or industrial action would be a greater resolve for the issue.

Sure. I am very pro general strikes. The problem is organising them. Since they're extremely difficult to get people to buy into, then it's not unreasonable for individual professions to carry out industrial action individually, rather than waiting for something that is quite unlikely.

> I think you come across as hostile. If money goes up on all wages, that’s assuming all businesses, organisations, etc have the funds available to do this. I think we can agree that isn’t the case and isn’t the basis for capitalism. I think some can afford more than other or some can’t. In order to pay more they charge more? So - that’s the argument for inflation?

I think you come across as a little ignorant of how businesses operate. I'm an accountant. If everyone understood how the financial side of the world worked as well as I did, nobody would need me.

What do you think you're actually saying here? Because I'm genuinely not sure.

I strongly believe that any business that cannot afford to pay its workers a living wage deserves to fail. I literally could not care less if a business goes under because their success relies on underpaying their staff. To be clear, I am a socialist. I am of the opinion that an individual's ability to survive and thrive should not be at the whim of whether an employer wants to pay them enough to allow them to. Capitalism relies on a latent threat of destitution to keep people willing to work for poverty wages. It's just a given. It's why capitalism doesn't like unions - unions force them to pay more than poverty wages.

> So if not everyone is to get a pay rise, shouldn’t it go to those most underpaid or most needy? Do you feel train drivers represent the most needy?

Again, what do you think you are asking here? There are lots of chronically underpaid jobs out there. Scottish Rail Holdings is not in a position to top up the pay of, say, nurses, or carers, or cleaners, or retail workers, or whoever else. SRH can only do anything with the pay of the people they employ. And if you're about to point out that they are a public body, I'd like to refer you back to the fact that you fundamentally don't understand how SRH (and public sector bodies in general) is set up to operate if you think that SRH has anything to do with the pay of any other public sector employees.

> I think instead of individual action it requires collective action as a society.

Cool. Agreed. Away and get started on organising that then instead of moaning that train drivers are overpaid and shouldn't be taking any action on their own working conditions.

> I think what happens when individual industries take action and collectively resolve an issue for themselves. I think they are happy and problem solved. That’s the end of it. As previously stated. What I think will then happen is they will have them taken a money that could be better spent elsewhere and there won’t be support for others as their issue is now resolved.

Again with the not understanding how SRH operates.

You're talking about individual industries who end up happy with their lot. But you also seem to think that people are going to take collective, society-wide action? Which is it mate?

If every individual industry was unionised, it wouldn't really matter if there was collective action or just loads of individual actions.