Guardian Interview with Mick Whelan

[LNW-GW Joint]

There's an interesting interview with Mick Whelan (General Secretary of ASLEF) in the Guardian/Observer, by their transport correspondent Gwyn Topham.
There's as much about the person as the dispute.

Mick Whelan of Aslef: ‘We don’t have a choice but to strike. It’s existential for us’

The train drivers’ leader fell into railway work by accident, but he says he has enjoyed every moment of it. Apart from negotiating with the Tories, perhaps

www.theguardian.com

Pay talks have foundered and Whelan is fuming at the rail firms and the government, whose “dead hand” he sees as sabotaging progress: “I’ve never dealt with such dissembling, deceitful, disingenuous, dishonourable people in my 38 years of operating on all levels of this industry.”
...
He can be pragmatic – he backs Keir Starmer, despite the sacking of a shadow cabinet minister for joining a rail picket line – but will be firmly leading the 13,000 of the 22,000 drivers in his union who work for the English, government-contracted passenger operators out on strike again.
“We don’t have a choice. It’s existential for us. When I’ve asked how many years do you intend to not even give us an inflation pay rise, we haven’t had an answer,” he says.
“The government want to run us back to working 13 days on the trot. Which we won’t be doing.”

 

[43066]

Backs Starmer, so not exactly the hard-left-trying-to-bring-down-capitalism-firebrand he’s often made out to be!

 

[Thirteen]

Whelan always come across well in interviews and he's actually willing to talk to the press and media. I think the RMT rightly or wrongly has created this perpection that union leaders are all the same when it's far from the truth. It's similar with Sharon Graham, you never see her attacked by the media because she comes across well.

 

[physics34]

If anyone has the full article minus the paywall, that would be useful

 

[43066]

If anyone has the full article minus the paywall, that would be useful

No paywall on the Grauniad!

 

[InOban]

But you have to register I think.

 

[ComUtoR]

But you have to register I think.

No paywall, no need to register. Just click the "X"

 

[Carlisle]

Backs Starmer, so not exactly the hard-left-trying-to-bring-down-capitalism-firebrand he’s often made out to be!

He doesn’t really need to be given nobody’s currently driving UK mainline trains on minimum wage or close to it .

 

[43066]

He doesn’t really need to be as nobody’s currently driving UK mainline trains on minimum wage or close to it .

What does that have to do with anything (other than the fact you can never resist a dig at driver pay)!?

The point I was making is that it rather contradicts the usual nonsense trotted out, that the unions are trying to bring down capitalism, that the strikes are political, we’re all being used as pawns etc.

 

[Carlisle]

What does that have to do with anything (other than the fact you can never resist a dig at driver pay)!?

I wasn’t moaning about drivers pay merely attempting to make a point capitalism’s served the grade very well, unlike many carers , cleaners or bus & van drivers whom it could be argued had better conditions when nationalised .

 

[43066]

I wasn’t moaning about drivers pay

Not much you weren’t!

merely attempting to make a point capitalism’s served the grade very well, unlike many carers , cleaners or bus & van drivers whom it could be argued had better conditions when nationalised .

That’s not entirely accurate, and not the full picture when you speak to people who have worked in the grade for a long period given the movement to “clean” pay away from allowances, many conditions have been sold over the years etc. I can’t be bothered to get into the usual boring discussion about carers, van drivers, nurses etc.

All I can say is, I agree with Mick. I’m well overdue a pay rise…

 

[FenMan]

Not much you weren’t!



That’s not entirely accurate, and not the full picture when you speak to people who have worked in the grade for a long period given the movement to “clean” pay away from allowances, many conditions have been sold over the years etc. I can’t be bothered to get into the usual boring discussion about carers, van drivers, nurses etc.

All I can say is, I agree with Mick. I’m well overdue a pay rise…

The key thing is not whether staff deserve a pay rise, but whether money is available to pay for it.

The old days of TOC's negotiating local deals have gone due to COVID and a wider move to homeworking, to be replaced by the TOCs being dependent on the Government for their income. The TOCs can control their costs but their income is no longer determined by creatively increasing incremental revenue which they'd get a decent chunk of (think half-way nationalistion of the railways).

And being dependent means being dependent on HM Treasury, which has plenty of priorities other than railways on its agenda. Which means HM Treasury approves a sum for the DfT to allocate to the TOCs to spend as they see fit, but no more. To settle above the HM Treasury-approved funding means TOCs would be taking all of the increased cost while their revenue, which is determined by HM Treasury, doesn't move a jot. Why would they do that, unless corporately leaving their senses?

Meanwhile, HM Treasury are perfectly happy to let the unions fulminate, take action and achieve little or nothing, because the vast majority of voters are shrugging their shoulders as they don't use the railway anyway. Which is why we are where we are.

Our Mick, bless him, has long been campaigning for full renationalisation of the railway. A classic case of be careful what you wish for.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The key thing is not whether staff deserve a pay rise, but whether money is available to pay for it.

The old days of TOC's negotiating local deals have gone due to COVID and a wider move to homeworking, to be replaced by the TOCs being dependent on the Government for their revenue (think half-way nationalistion of the railways). And being dependent means being dependent on HM Treasury, who have plenty of priorities other than railways on their agenda. Which means HM Treasury approves a sum for the DfT to allocate to the TOCs to spend as they see fit, but no more. To settle above the HM Treasury-approved funding means TOCs would be taking a significant cost risk while not being in control of their revenues, which is determined by ... HM Treasury. Why would they do that, unless corporately leaving their senses? Which is why we are where we are.

Our Mick, bless him, has long been campaigning for full renationalisation of the railway. A classic case of be careful what you wish for.

Indeed it was privatisation that transformed drivers pays as TOCs would take a judgement call on revenue generation vs operating costs. Problem with the Treasury is the mandarins have never lived in the real world. Oh and i can't see Labour being anymore generous given they won't even make any positive noises about NHS staff.

 

[Turtle]

Backs Starmer, so not exactly the hard-left-trying-to-bring-down-capitalism-firebrand he’s often made out to be!

Only in the world of "union barons" created by the likes of the Mail, Express, Sun etc.