To some extent you are right but the constant running down of public services is politically motivated as well.

You don't have to tell me. I have just retired having spent 42 years in the public Sector!

The fact that the union say it isn't.

You can chose to believe them or not, but there is plenty of evidence it is about safety.

And if you think average working people are going to forego days and days of much-needed pay over a prolonged period, just to make a point to the government then I think you're mad*.

*If you think they are going to forego days and days of pay to try and ensure greater pay and/or job security then maybe. But no matter what the union want to achieve, most of these people are not going to give up money that their family need to try and give the Tories a bloody nose.

Edited by OknotOK (11 Jan 2017 4.52pm)

"It's almost like a moral decision. Except not really cos noone is going to find out," Jez, Peep Show

But, as I keep saying, they're not that worried about safety on strike days - when it's really dangerous. I'm surprised they don't refuse to drive trains on those days based upon their principles.

The overriding reason for the strike is that they want to protect their jobs. That's fair enough, but at least admit it. The 'safety issue' is clearly an attempt to make their cause appear more justified in the public mind. But imagine if a scheme was proposed that lost jobs but increased safety, would they support that? Would they f**k.

We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell]

But the conductors jobs are safe until 2020, in the present climate I don't think that is that bad.