The Sun: No-strike plan for transport workers

[dcsprior]

Simply because many are jealous of transport workers and/or believe they are lower than scum and are lucky to have a job.

Or (being slightly more charitable) because they've swallowed the propaganda of those who're playing a very clever divide-and-conquer game.

I don't work in the rail industry, neither do any of my friends/family. My view from the outside is it does seem relatively well-paid, when compared with jobs elsewhere requiring similar qualifications and length of training - and that it now seems to be one of the few places you'll still see strong unions, collective bargaining, etc.

My reaction to this is not to wish that rail workers were paid less, got a smaller pension, or had generally less favourable terms and conditions - but instead wish that others would receive a better deal too.

One caveat however is that if the strong unions exhaust the patience of the public, then they'll no longer be strong, and the workers will have lost out.

 

[Oswyntail]

What a laugh.

And your considered analysis is...?

 

[jon0844]

Sun journalists are always happy to inform you of how much people earn but when asked how much they themsleves earn respond with 'It's none of your bloody business'.

Besides the editor and other senior roles, I can assure you that journalists are NOT on particularly good money these days. I can't speak for The Sun specifically, but you can expect many journalists to be getting paid sub-20k, rising to less than 30k in a pretty good role (i.e. one with a fair degree of responsibility). Chances are a designer or sub-editor might get paid more than the person writing the stories.

There might be a union for journalists, but they're not going to be getting journos the same rates of pay as the RMT of ASLEF might be getting rail staff. For one, if someone doesn't like the bad money, they can quite easily be replaced tomorrow with someone else who will write for less.

Given the reduction in print sales and print advertising, leaving websites to rely on advertisers that can track ads (and therefore pay less), I fear journalists will continue to work for less and less [meaning well experienced ones leave to be replaced by more junior roles] and, of course, editorial quality will continue to fall.

The Sun is of course trying down the paywall route, to try and make up the difference, as are a few others but most people seem to expect to read news, features and interviews for free - but still hope they'll do the type of quality investigative journalism that has exposed all sorts of things over the years (not all using dodgy methods, I might add).

 

[A-driver]

There is a very simple reason why the press are anti rail staff-it sells papers.

A huge number of papers are sold at stations to commuters. The metro and evening standard are entirely aimed at commuters. What is more likely to make you pick up a metro in the morning? A headline saying 'train drivers earn a fair salary for what they do and have negotiated a fair rise for next year from their profitable employers' or 'train drivers who earn 50k to do sit about all day doing nothing threaten to walk out if they aren't given a 5k pay rise whilst all you poor souls are bled dry by their employers trying to afford the pay rises so have to put up your ticket prices even though half of you haven't had a pay rise for ages as your companies aren't making as much profit'

(Obviously need a huge paper to fit that headline on but you get my drift)

My point is that weather it be bankers bonuses, politicians expenses or train drivers salaries the press know that it will sell papers as its a minority group getting a good deal whilst others are not getting such a good deal and with a bit of word twisting it can easily be portrayed that those better off are so directly at the expense of the less well off.

 

[Cherry_Picker]

I know a guy who is in the press. He says that one of the golden rules is that stories on transport, education or health will sell papers on even the slowest of news days. Throw that into the equation where you have a bunch of papers who's audience is overwhelmingly made up of commuters and it's pretty obvious that the contract details of transport workers is a pretty rich vein to mine.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Given the reduction in print sales and print advertising, leaving websites to rely on advertisers that can track ads (and therefore pay less), I fear journalists will continue to work for less and less [meaning well experienced ones leave to be replaced by more junior roles] and, of course, editorial quality will continue to fall.

This of course means that the more sensationalistic banner headline stories are more and more sought after by the editorial staff as a means of attempting to combat the decline in revenue caused by falling newspaper sales, of which the advertising industry are only too aware.

 

[ffm]

Greenback could you explain which part of my post was factually incorrect?

 

[jon0844]

This of course means that the more sensationalistic banner headline stories are more and more sought after by the editorial staff as a means of attempting to combat the decline in revenue caused by falling newspaper sales, of which the advertising industry are only too aware.

What I hate (well one of the things) is when a story is mostly correct and fair, but a sub then decides to add a totally sensational and misleading headline to the story. It's not just newspapers that do this, I see it on tech sites all the time. Of course the latter isn't as big a problem.

It's well known that many people won't read a whole story and many won't even read any of the story if the headline pretty much sums things up - so it's all the more vital not to use headlines that aren't accurate.

 

[michael769]

There might be a union for journalists, but they're not going to be getting journos the same rates of pay as the RMT of ASLEF might be getting rail staff.

BECTU or NUJ.

Problem for them is that when they go on strike nobody really notices.

 

[jon0844]

I'm a NUJ member. As you say, Joe Public won't care. And if it does result in a strike at a newspaper etc, it doesn't massively affect people.

 

[MacRae13]

And your considered analysis is...?

So you can say I'm incorrect, and I say you're incorrect - and then we go round in circles until we're in a my dad's bigger than your dad discussion?

No thanks. It seems others think the same; they've just wasted energy with you I'm not prepared to.

I really should learn not to post in threads about strike action. It's disheartening there's so many people around who want to make it harder for others to protect their livelihood. Sad.