A half-formed story floated down the polluted, yet fast flowing, river of the news media this week. It dipped and bobbed about a bit and then disappeared beneath the surface. Whether it will emerge again remains to be seen.
It was the story of a possible tube strike on the day of the wedding of William Windsor to Kate Middleton on April 29th (RSVP). Reading between the lines evidence of this threat appeared to be fairly scant, with ASLEF, the union in question declaring that although they could not rule out the possibility, they had not yet discussed the issue and that in their opinion the possibility of a walk-out on the the extra-special day was a "remote chance".
However, let's for the sake of fun assume there is traction in these rumours and that having smacked Boxing Day hard around the face, ASLEF are now preparing to give to give the royal wedding a particularly nasty Chinese burn. Pretty despicable tactics you'll probably conclude and understandably you'll find the phrase 'holding us to ransom' almost indispensable when discussing the issue. What's curious is that commentators never seem to find themselves reaching for that same phrase when discussing the bankers, who regularly remind us that their luggage is packed and they are poised to desert these shores and abandon the nation should anyone so much as consider questioning their preposterous salaries and the fat bonuses they pile on top. Instead a different phrase is deployed, this time aimed not at the bankers, but at their critics who it transpires are fuelled by the 'politics of envy'. Those who criticise the unions, however are never tarred with this ugly brush. Funny that.
Of course the two scenarios are in many ways very different and it would be absurd to not to acknowledge that, however I think valid parallels can be teased out. Consider the fact that the arguments extended in favour of the bankers are almost always pragmatic. No one seriously argues that the bankers actually deserve the money they take home in any moral sense. Oh yes, there is idle talk of how hard they work and I'm certain they do, but the point is a weak one and the cheerleaders of the square mile know it. Lots of people work hard at lots of things; few are remunerated in quite such a lavish way. No, the real argument is that if we don't let them have what they want they'll swan off to Switzerland or Dubai or somewhere equally charmless to emit their smoke and erect their mirrors, and then where would UK PLC be without all the revenue they magically generate? Buggered, goes the argument and they may well be right.
And then when we ask, why are the sums they can demand are so astronomic, the only answer that seems forthcoming is, because the deals they are coordinating are of such epic size that when they take their modest cut, the cut is, never the less, by definition, gargantuan. The thinnest slice of the largest pie is still a banquet by most peoples standards.
Explanations, but not justifications. It's not that they are attempting to justify and failing; they simply don't feel the need to try. What's fascinating is that no one seems in the slightest bit ashamed to admit their only affiliation is to financial gain. The free market is the finally arbiter of what goes and what does not. The question of whether it is just, is not even raised, because justice is a concept that is only meaningful to a community and we don't really do community any more. Not since the spell was cast.
And what of the tube drivers? Well, here's my point, why shouldn't they behave within exactly the same amoral parameters as the bankers? Why shouldn't they view the coming nuptials as nothing more than a fat pie from which they can exact a thin slice just because they're in a position to do so, just because they're capable of ruining it for the nation if we don't agree to their demands? No reason at all, unless, of course, we ask of them that which the bankers refuse to contemplate; that they consider interests other than their own. Personally, although no royalist myself, I rather hope they do.
It is not I think as easy as suggesting that we have become more greedy. People have always been greedy. It is that the cultural conventions which once fettered and muzzled that greed are, each day, worn a little weaker.
No comments:
Post a Comment