this is bbc news. we'll have the headlines and all the main news stories for you at the top of the hour, straight after this programme. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. across the world, workers are finding their living standards squeezed by rising inflation. for some, it's not so much a squeeze as decapitation. technological change is driving job cuts in a host of industries. do workers have the means to fight back? well, the uk rail industry is something of a test case. for months, rail workers have been striking overpay and plans to change working conditions.

—— for months, rail workers have been striking over pay and plans my guest is mick lynch, leader of the biggest rail union, the rmt. the stakes in this fight are high. can the workers win? mick lynch, welcome to hardtalk. you are the leader of a union that's been in a long—running dispute now. it goes back to last summer. there have been rolling, sporadic strikes. as it goes on, does it feel harder to find your way to a compromise? well, there's no easy way out for either side. the government has boxed themselves into a corner, to a large extent.

and i think that's predicated on the idea of setting precedents for public sector. we've seen the nurses, ambulance drivers, many civil servants in dispute along similar lines. people aren't being paid enough in this society at the moment and many public sector workers have had long—term pay cuts measured against any measure of inflation, so there's some catch—up to be done, and that makes it harder because the government wants to bear down on inflation and they want to teach workers a lesson that they'll have to put up with what they're providing. so, it is tough, but we're in a better position than we were, say, two years ago, where trade unions seemed a bit cowed. and they seem a bit more confident now and ready to campaign. but when you use phrases like "they want to teach us a lesson," it does sound as though you're bringing a mindset of, frankly, battle, of confrontation. well, trade union disputes are a confrontation... that is the mindset? yeah. you win or you lose? it's binary?

we need to get a result. whether anyone will win, in inverted commas, being chaired out of the meeting and champagne corks flying, i don't think that's going to happen either way. what we need is a result. we're battling for our future. we think it's the future of the industry, what kind of industry we have, and that's across many public services — what kind of nhs, what kind of education and what kind of transport system. we either have it for the purposes of profit or we do it for the needs of the people and the needs of the economy and, of course, the environment as well, and that's all about whether there's a profit motive at the centre of everything or whether you provide on the basis of need and the basis of utility, that people need the services to keep the country going. and as you have already alluded to, one dispute amongst quite a number in the public sector or the quasi—public sector. in the end, it is about money and is about other things as well, terms and conditions, but let'sjust things as well, terms and conditions, but let's just stick to the money first. in december, it was clear that there was an offer on the table that some people in the rail industry were prepared to accept.

one union, the ts essay, its members across the board accepted a 9% offer over two years. that same figure pretty much was on offer to all of your members. why did you not only dismiss it but describe it as dreadful? it dismiss it but describe it as dreadful?— dismiss it but describe it as dreadful? ., ., , dreadful? it was a really poor offered. the _ dreadful? it was a really poor offered. the people - dreadful? it was a really poor offered. the people that - dreadful? it was a really poor - offered. the people that accepted our managers. they are the people who go to work when we go on strike. they decided to do that. they are receiving bonuses when they go to work to break our strike. that is a fairly simple formula. you have to decide which team you're playing for. the inflation rate during that period, just those two years is over 21% on the retail price index. most of our members have not had a pay rise now for four years, of our members have not had a pay rise now forfour years, because there were two years or three years of austerity during the pandemic, where we did not get any pay rises. so if you say, myjob is to protect my members during inflation, are you telling me and more important

remembers that you believe you can get anything like a 21% deal two years? get anything like a 2196 deal two ears? ., ., get anything like a 2196 deal two ears? . ., , get anything like a 2196 deal two ears? ., ., , ., , ., years? that would be really tough, but what we _ years? that would be really tough, but what we have _ years? that would be really tough, but what we have got _ years? that would be really tough, but what we have got to _ years? that would be really tough, but what we have got to say... - years? that would be really tough, l but what we have got to say... what would be acceptable? _ but what we have got to say... what would be acceptable? i _ but what we have got to say... what would be acceptable? i am - but what we have got to say... what would be acceptable? i am not - but what we have got to say... what| would be acceptable? i am not going to negotiate — would be acceptable? i am not going to negotiate in _ would be acceptable? i am not going to negotiate in an _ would be acceptable? i am not going to negotiate in an interview. - would be acceptable? i am not going to negotiate in an interview. what i to negotiate in an interview. what my members are telling us is the pay issues notjust the issue or the only important one, it is the way that pensions are going forward for the many things have been ripped out of workers hands, even here at the bbc, i would venture, many of the terms and conditions have been ripped away, people have been casual lysed, forced to work for subcontractors and indeed had their pension terms ripped up in having to defend themselves on ta ke take the role e—mail —— royal mail. they are looking to put things on the same basis as the gig economy, in essence, and people will not

accept that. people are determined to hang onto those conditions and indeed win them back for other people. pm indeed win them back for other eo - le. �* , indeed win them back for other --eole. �* , ., people. an interesting turn of -hrase. people. an interesting turn of phrase- you _ people. an interesting turn of phrase. you say, _ people. an interesting turn of phrase. you say, our- people. an interesting turn of phrase. you say, our people i people. an interesting turn of i phrase. you say, our people are going to hang onto their conditions, but the fact is, you would surely accept, your members would accept, that technology has changed, the ways of doing business have changed and that involves change on the railways. for example, we can take a couple of issues, let's start with the way customers buy tickets. you are determined to stop the closure of ticket offices when it is quite plain if you just look at the figures that only one in eight real customers now purchase their ticket in a ticket office. it is customers now purchase their ticket in a ticket office.— in a ticket office. it is not 'ust about the fi in a ticket office. it is not 'ust about the sale i in a ticket office. it is not 'ust about the sale offl in a ticket office. it is not 'ust about the sale of tickets, h in a ticket office. it is notjust about the sale of tickets, it . in a ticket office. it is notjust about the sale of tickets, it is about the sale of tickets, it is about the believer to help people have got accessibility needs, visitors to our country, people who have got disabilities. the ticket office is a hub, it is the centre of a station, it is where people know

they can get assistance. so there will be a new role for ticket offices, we do not think and cutting them is the answer. the same as your village. you want all of those services to be there. women and others using those stations want to know that they will be properly staffed. we have been here before. the roadway when it was privatised was stripped of its staff, it became a mothers paradise in some areas. we want to properly staffed railway. d0 want to properly staffed railway. do you think it is important to learn what you can from other countries, the systems? in sweden, in 2021, they close down their final ticket offices. they have staffed roving around stations, helping customers, but they don't need ticket offices any more. why can't you learn, for example, from that? we any more. why can't you learn, for example, from that?— any more. why can't you learn, for example, from that? we do learn from them and we — example, from that? we do learn from them and we learn _ example, from that? we do learn from them and we learn from _ example, from that? we do learn from them and we learn from the _ example, from that? we do learn from them and we learn from the way - them and we learn from the way stations were privatised here in

britain. the swedish really fund the staffing in a different way and they may have made a agreement with the union on how the staffing will be rovided. , , union on how the staffing will be provided._ but - union on how the staffing will be provided._ but we - union on how the staffing will be l provided._ but we don't provided. flexibility? but we don't have many don't _ provided. flexibility? but we don't have many don't act _ provided. flexibility? but we don't have many don't act any _ provided. flexibility? but we don't have many don't act any of- provided. flexibility? but we don't have many don't act any of those l have many don't act any of those staffing — have many don't act any of those staffing agreements they have in other_ staffing agreements they have in other countries.— staffing agreements they have in other countries. there are countries where the loss _ other countries. there are countries where the loss of _ other countries. there are countries where the loss of ticket _ other countries. there are countries where the loss of ticket offices, - where the loss of ticket offices, the loss of public services on the railway has been at a price. we had all that in the 90s. you railway has been at a price. we had all that in the 90s.— all that in the 90s. you cannot be afraid of flexibility, _ all that in the 90s. you cannot be afraid of flexibility, because - afraid of flexibility, because it means the industry you care about and work in tribes, notjust survives but thrives. one other example, because again it is important. the driver only operated trains. you have said there would be no deal in which there are more driver only operated trains, but that already is 30% of the rail network in the uk. if you look at a host of countries abroad, they've totally embrace this idea. why are

you so dead set against it. it is not a majority position. i could give a whole list of countries that have embraced... the? could give a whole list of countries that have embraced. . ._ could give a whole list of countries that have embraced... they have a... we believe — that have embraced... they have a... we believe it — that have embraced... they have a... we believe it is _ that have embraced... they have a... we believe it is a _ that have embraced... they have a... we believe it is a safer _ that have embraced... they have a... we believe it is a safer system - that have embraced... they have a... we believe it is a safer system to - we believe it is a safer system to have a guard there, to have a second safety trickle person, and they not only operate the railway of the of the route, they have knowledge of the route, they have knowledge of the traction, third rails and all the traction, third rails and all the rest of it, and during evacuations, during evacuations, during the big crises we have had and the accidents, the guard at the accident last year evacuated their train and call the emergency services, the first response. but the safety _ services, the first response. but the safety board has analysed a whole heap of evidence they are an employers organisation. you think they are liars? i think they have got an agenda. you

have to pay a levy to that organisation and they are carrying out the agenda of the railway companies. they are not independent, they're not even impartial of they are there to do the work of the train operator. just are there to do the work of the train operator.— are there to do the work of the train operator. just again in terms of this dispute, _ train operator. just again in terms of this dispute, get _ train operator. just again in terms of this dispute, get on _ train operator. just again in terms of this dispute, get on to - train operator. just again in terms of this dispute, get on to bigger. of this dispute, get on to bigger questions in a minute, you said in december, you will not accept any deal that involves further roll—out of... deal that involves further roll-out of... ~ ., ., , ., of... we will not. that is union oli of... we will not. that is union policy and _ of... we will not. that is union policy and it — of... we will not. that is union policy and it is _ of... we will not. that is union policy and it is a _ of... we will not. that is union policy and it is a redline. - of... we will not. that is union policy and it is a redline. they | policy and it is a redline. they understand that. we policy and it is a redline. they understand that.— policy and it is a redline. they understand that. ~ ., ., ., understand that. we have done a new deal where we — understand that. we have done a new deal where we have _ understand that. we have done a new deal where we have maintained - understand that. we have done a new deal where we have maintained a - deal where we have maintained a second person, we have changed the operation and it is appreciated. it is only where the tories have the right to dictate the terms this is

happening. so, in other countries, in wales and scotland, and on merseyside, where... merseyside's not another country yet, but that may be the way it goes — but in other authorities, we don't have this problem. this is an ideological problem brought through the government. well, of course, according to the rail operators and network rail, it's not ideology, it's actually about basic business. the industry's losing vast amounts of money every year... yeah, while those rail operators... ..six billion quid... while those rail operators have made profit all through that period because they're guaranteed their payments, and the contracts that they have with the dft ensure profit on a royalty basis. they've got a one—way ticket for profit in this dispute, and they have to carry out the instructions of the dft — that's in their contracts.

all over their contracts, it's saying, "the secretary of state dictates your industrial mandate and your industrial stance with the trade unions". every time they write me a letter, or even take an email or phone call, they have to tell the secretary of state what was said and seek his authority. so, there is ideology in it — it's a political dispute brought on us by this government. you talked about the mind—set of battle, of confrontation, you talked about not being ready to be "taught a lesson", i get the mind—set, but in the end, how much pain can your members take? already, the strikes that you've called have cost your members a lot money, maybe £1,500, £2,000 each. the support for the strikes is still pretty solid, but it is nowhere near as high as it was at the beginning, it's ebbing away — how long can this be sustained? well, it being ebbing away is propaganda from companies... well, from 92% to 64%. well, no, that's a referendum on a particular offer. so, 64% of our members voted against accepting a deal, and then they went on strike and manned the picket lines and supported the issue. so, we have had two strike ballots that both came in between 85—92%,

as you say, on massive turnouts. so, the support for the dispute is there, and the lack of movement from the companies is obvious. we're virtually in the same position as we were at the start of the dispute — and in fact, with the train operators, it took them seven months to even make an offer. and that's all about the political situation in the country, and then wanting to attack trade unions, and my union in particular, because of its reputation. so, you're pretty confident your membership is solid. what about the public? do you carefully look at where public opinion is? cos again, i'm sure you will have noted that, according to yougov and other polls, the numbers of those supporting your strike action has gone down, and it's now sitting around a0%, so clearly less than half. there's very few strikes in history that have garnered that kind of level of support. we think it will come back. that was on the back of... it's not as high as the nurses and some of the other people we've talked to... well, it won't be, i don't think it ever will be, because people have a lot... is it because people

think your members are pretty well—paid already, much higher than the national average? no, they're not, that's more propaganda. it's not propaganda, it's the truth. three quarters of our — no, it's not — three quarters of our members who are in this dispute earn less than £32,000 a year. vast numbers of them are earning in the mid—20s for 24/7—hour contracts. the stuff that's punted out by the management is that everyone's a train driver... no, i appreciate not everyone's a train driver, and they earn very good money, roughly £60,000 on average. and i appreciate that is the drivers, and many of your members are not drivers, but the average for your whole membership is, i think, well over 40,000. no, it's not, that's completely and utterly untrue. we've been through this with the companies. i went through the payday 2—3 weeks ago — three quarters of our people are earning less than 32,000. this is stuff punted out by the government and the companies. when we got down to the data that they wouldn't release to us, which we forced them to release through legal challenge, it turns out that three quarters of our people are on less than 32,000 and 50% of them are on less than 28,000. do you reckon — and this

is where i get a bit personal — do you reckon your own background has sort of prepared you for where you are right now? you know, you were brought up in a working—class part of london, your family were working class and proud of it, and you were a union activist who suffered for your activities — you were actually blacklisted at one point and got compensation for it. so, you've been a fighter throughout your life. do you think this is why you are so ready to fight today? well, working—class people have always had to fight. our welfare state and our nhs unemployment benefit, sickness benefit, were not given to us as gifts by the rich, by the ruling class, if you want to put it that way. we had to fight for them, from the time of the chartists. we had to fight for universal suffrage, we had to fight to get mps paid in the house of commons so working—class people could go there. everything that we've gained — whether it's a collective agreement in a company or the nature of the welfare state — has had to be fought for through struggle. and if we give up our terms and conditions, we'll be back to another era,

to a victorian or edwardian era, before any of us had sick pay. and many millions of people in this country are now in that condition, which is why many people are not just poor, many of them are actually going into destitution. we don't want our members to go that way, and we want to bring all those other people into union organised jobs with collective agreements that covers vast sections of the economy. i understand you don't want to go back to the victorian era, but i'm interested in another era which you do appear to have a good deal of nostalgia for — that's the 1970s, because in other interviews... well, the music was better. sorry? the music was better. surely you might agree. well, was union power, as we saw it in the 1970s, was it really successful? you've said to other interviewers, "i'm nostalgic for the power we had." and now you say the working class is back, in a way, it's a bit like that golden age of the 1970s. but think about it, was it really a golden age? there was an enormous wave of union activism, and there were a whole lot of strikes.

but in the end, what did that lead to? it led to a crisis in british industry, it led to mass unemployment, and it ultimately led politically to margaret thatcher. so, your view is that the unions created that, not the underinvestment and the failure to retool... no, but i'm looking at the end result of a decade of industrial struggle. the industrial strife was the end result of a decade, or more decades of not investing in our economy, allowing other economies to go ahead of us in terms of technology, not retraining, not retooling, not reinvesting. and what also happened during that period, from the war through to the late �*70s, was an equalisation of wealth and power in our country, to some extent — not perfectly, but we did get women's wage equality. we did get the race relations act. we got health and safety at work act, which is one of the most important pieces of legislation that we ever had under the wilson government.

and a lot of that has been now thrown away because they're going to casualise our economy, and of course, they exported all those manufacturing jobs as a deliberate and intentional policy under thatcher and tebbit, they sent all that work to china and the far east, and are now complaining that they make everything. but even if you wanted to go back to what you see... i don't want to go back. ..as a golden age, you couldn't, and i'll tell you why you couldn't, because trade union membership in the �*70s was roughly at 75—80%. today it's at roughly a quarter, 25%. you know how many people under the age of 25... i don't want to go back. ..are actually in unions? 496. and that's a challenge for us. it's more than a challenge, it's a catastrophe. well, it's a challenge for us in the sense that we've left vast areas of the economy unorganised. and what i tell the tuc and anyone else that will listen, and when we go out on the road and do road shows, enough is enough and the people's assembly, thousands of young people come out and they're asking us, "how do we organise in these new forms of work?" and we've got to find a way, as trade unionists, and old geezers like me have got to change the means and the ways through

which we organise. i recognise that, and i know that boring branch meetings and boring structures that we've had are not the way forward, reading out the minutes and all the rest... speaking as an old geezer, i sympathise with the difficulties. but also, speaking as somebody who looks at britain today, i see that the clear majority of young people, for example, voted remain and still wish britain was inside the european union. they may look at you, one of the most influential prominent union leaders in the country, who still today says, "i have no regrets about supporting brexit. "i do not want to see britain ever talk about returning to the eu," and young people think you're out of touch with the way they feel. well, i may be out of touch with their views to some extent, they may be out of touch of why some people on the left oppose the european union... sorry to interrupt, because we haven't got that much time, but if a young person says to you today, "mick, even now, "how can you say it was right to support brexit when we see "a 4% cut in gdp as a direct result of brexit?"

we see inflation, partly a result of the brexit issues that have been raised since we left the european union. young people would say, "how can you, as a representative of working people, think that brexit has worked in favour "of working people?" i don't think it works. i've never said it works. the problem with brexit... so, you regret voting for it? the problem with brexit is it's in the hands of a conservative government, and people keep voting conservative against their own interests, against the interests of young people, who often don't vote at all, and in the interests of working people and society in general. we could've had a completely different relationship with the eu and the world if we'd had a different type of government, and we need a different type of government going forward. but even the boss of the trades union congress, the overarching confederation of unions, paul nowak, he says, "thanks to brexit, the conservatives can now put" what he calls a "wrecking ball to hard—won worker rights" on a whole raft of things, from holiday pay to safe working hours, protection from discrimination. and you, mick lynch, were one of the few union leaders who actively campaigned for brexit. well, many of those laws

about workers' rights don't come from the european union. some of them do, and some of them don't. and you don't have to repeal them if you don't want to. it's the government that is repealing them, not the fact that we left the european union. the government, or a government, can go further than the laws we've got now, if they wish, because now they're sovereign. what we believe the european union was about, and the question of principle on which we made our decision, is the fact that privatisation seems to be, to us, to be a constitutional matter now in the european union. they call it liberalisation, and the railways all over europe are now having to open themselves up to competition. we believe that would have gone into the health service and further into education and all our public sector. the difference between privatisations we've had and what will go on in the european union with the so—called four freedoms is that those are constitutional matters and you cannot avoid them. and i believe, and we believe, that the corbyn manifesto would probably have been illegal in large parts if we'd stayed

in the european union. now, he didn't win that election, so it's academic. it's a moot point, but also the idea that you can't have nationalisation, de facto nationalisation, of train and rail networks across europe is obviously nonsense, because it is de facto nationalised in italy, in france, in germany. it's subject to liberalisation. so, you must allow competitors into that industry. and that's true of all of the public sector industries... i'm going to interrupt... ..under the four freedoms. a couple more issues before we end, we've hardly any time. you mentioned corbyn, former leader of the labour party. today's leader is keir starmer. do you care whether keir starmer wins the next election? ie, would you use your influence and weight with workers across this country to fight for a keir starmer win? absolutely, i want the labour party and keir starmer to win the election. keir starmer will be the candidate obviously, so... because he doesn't back your strike, at least he... that's fine. ..wouldn't let his own shadow cabinet go on the picket line. it won't have an effect one way or the other,

or any other celebrity. that'll be done at the table and the balance of forces in the dispute. but we need a change of government, and the only way that'll go realistically is whether labour win it or the conservatives win it. so, those on the harder left, the further left, who say, frankly, there's no real difference between starmer and sunak... well, that's simply untrue. there is a difference. he's put forward a programme, which we will attempt to hold him to with the other unions, of a fair deal for workers, which is repealing these anti—trade union laws which we're getting more of, to give workers' rights in the workplace, to give a more balanced equation in the world of work. and on that alone, i would support him. but i want him to do more, i want him to be bolder. but the only person that can win it is starmer and the labour party. there isn't anybody else that's going to win that election. and the only person who can win your fight on the railways is you and your membership. you have said, "it is the fight of our lifetimes, and of our generation." what happens if you don't win? well, we'll always be there.

we've been around for 150 years and we've had bigger setbacks than this one would be. i'm sure that we will get a result, and i'm sure our members are with us. we were virtually barred and bankrupted in previous generations, and my union will be around when this bunch of politicians has passed on to another interest outside. so, we'll be around and we will continue to organise. but we're determined to get a result from this dispute that gives our members a future in their industry to which they're dedicated. we have to end there. mick lynch, thank you very much for being on hardtalk. thank you. hello. pleasant enough day

today for many of us. lots of sunshine and more of that on the way tomorrow. and generally speaking, the next few days should be dry for most of us. and, if anything, it'll turn even milder. but here's the picture right now across europe, a large area of high pressure. around the high pressure, winds blow in a clockwise fashion, so we're on this side of the high pressure. the winds are coming in from the south — a mild source, mild direction — so hence it's relatively mild for the time of the year. but we are quite close to weather fronts out in the atlantic and these weather fronts will be approaching us over the next couple of days. so here's the forecast for tonight, generally clear across the bulk of england, wales and scotland, a touch of frost developing too by the early hours. in northern ireland, i think the southerly breeze and the encroaching cloud will stop the frost from forming. so 7 degrees in belfast and, in fact, staying mild in the western isles of scotland too. but elsewhere it's pretty chilly. but, yes, chilly in the morning, but by day, it will be mild.

you can see that mild southerly coming almost from the canaries, i think. here's the forecast for tomorrow, then. so first thing, light winds and some fog in places, maybe southern wales, maybe the midlands, central areas too. out towards the west, always a bit more cloud for northern ireland, for parts of scotland, maybe even a few spots of rain from thicker cloud in belfast and glasgow. but elsewhere it should be a bright, if not sunny day and temperatures up to 13 degrees. now, wednesday onwards, things tend to change. so tuesday night into wednesday, the weather map here, a weather front approaches. it's because the high pressure that's been here will be slipping away towards the east. now, the weather front, once it starts crossing southern areas of the uk, will kind of dry out, rain itself out, because there's still enough high pressure here and it basically dries the weather front out. but in the north—west, blustery showers i think for northern ireland and also western parts of scotland. and then towards the end of the week, a big low will sweep towards us. lots of isobars here — pressure lines, big pressure gradients — so strong winds.

and, in fact, widespread gales are possible across the uk towards the end of the week. so, yes, monday and tuesday looking settled and dry, perhaps the sunshine lasting to wednesday, but the end of the week, it is looking very blustery indeed.

hello, i'm maryam moshiri. you're watching the context on bbc news. washington and beijing accuse each other of aerial espionage — after the us shoots down three unidentified objects — in just three days. the white house says they acted in the best interests of american people ——— and places the blame squarely at beijing's door. we know that these prc surveillance balloons have crossed over dozens of countries, on multiple continents, around the world, including some of our closest allies and partners. britain's opposition labour party accuses govenment deparments of lavish spending on hotels, dining and gifts —— and footing the public with the bill. a young girl is pulled from the rubble after seven—and—a—half days, but hopes of finding more people alive in turkey and syria are dwindling.