Rjan:
LazyDriver:
Rjan:
LazyDriver:
.As I say, the purpose of the union is to set that “going rate”.
The existing drivers seemed to understand this as regards their own pay, otherwise they would have accepted pay cuts so as to obey market forces and bring their own pay into line with the “going rate”.
If the union takes this opportunity to equalise pay again, then that’s fair enough.
But I had the impression the longer-serving drivers were expecting the same percentage increase, so as to maintain the two-tiered pay structure and their aristocratic status in it. And as I’ve said, no worker should tolerate such arrangements, and should freely attack any union or shop stewards that attempt to defend it.
I get what you say, and I think we’re nearly on the same page. The one main sticking point is, any union worth it’s salts would never try to negotiate a wage decrease. And if they can pacify the current workforce to ensure there’s not a stampede to the door when the pay is dropped in line with other companies, then that’s a win. I agree though, having applied a ringfence to existing drivers, the future pay discussions should exclude said ringfenced drivers. (sampede still avioded as they are still on a higher than industry standard pay), as ringfences should work both ways. Alternatively, they should have included a stepped increment for new employees to gain the seniority pay structure.
I would imagine though, this utopian approach would have faltered as the workforce would have been seniority heavy and they would not have voted on a stagnant pay deal while the young upstarts caught up with their inflated (for the time) pay packets. So, as the OP has stated, the numbers are now shifting to parity the opportunity to demand pay parity have become more gettable.