you're watching bbc news. the latest headlines coming up, after hardtalk.

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 over pay and plans to change working conditions. 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. of a union that's been it goes back to last summer, there had 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 to it a mind—set of, frankly, a battle, of confrontation. well, trade union disputes are a battle, they are a confrontation. nobody wants to get... that is the mind—set, is it? yeah... you either win or you lose, it's binary? there's no denying that we need to get a result. whether anyone will "win," in inverted commas, you know, being cheered out of a meeting and champagne corks flying, i don't think that'll 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 type of industries we have.

and that's true across many public services — what kind of nhs, what kind of education and what kind of transport system 7 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've already alluded to, you're one dispute amongst quite a number in the public sector, or the quasi—public sector. yeah. in the end, it's about money, and it's about other 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 tssa, its members, even across the board, they accepted a 9% offer over two years. now, 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"? well, it's a really poor offer. the people that have accepted it are managers. they're the people that go to work when we're on strike. the tssa doesn't take strike action as often as we do, so they've decided to do that. and they're receiving bonuses when they go to work to break our strike. so, that's a fairly simple formula, and you have to decide which team you're playing for. the inflation rate during that period, just those two years, is in excess of 21% on the retail price index. so, it's less than — way, way short of half. and most of our members haven't had a pay rise now for four years, because there were 2—3 years of austerity during the pandemic where we didn't get any pay rise. right, so if you say, "myjob is to protect my members "against inflation", are you seriously telling me — but more importantly them, your members — that you believe you can get anything like a 21% deal over two years? that'd be really tough, but what we've got to say is... so, what would be acceptable? well, i'm not going to negotiate in an interview. i'll negotiate with the people that invite me to the meetings to negotiate. what our members are telling us is even that the pay issue

isn'tjust the only issue, or even the most important. it's about their conditions of service, the way they're deployed. it's about their pensions going forward. many are things that have been ripped out of workers�* hands. even here at the bbc, i would venture that many of the terms and conditions have been ripped away, people have been casualised, forced to work for subcontractors and, indeed, have had their pension promise ripped up and are now having to fend for themselves. and if you look at, let's take the royal mail dispute, it's very similar — that's a fully—private sector industry now, but it's quasi—public service, as you say. they're looking to take all that stuff off them and put them on the same basis as the gig economy, in essence. and workers won't accept that, where you've defended those over the 30—a0 years of thatcherism, however you want to put it. people are determined to hang on to those conditions and, indeed, win them back for other people, set an example. right, again, an interesting turn of phrase. you say, "our people will hang on to their conditions" — but the fact is, surely, you would accept, your workers, your members would accept that technologies change, the ways of doing business

change, and that involves change on the railways. for example, we canjust 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 rail customers now purchases their ticket in a ticket office. why do you need all these ticket offices? it's notjust about the sale of tickets, it's about the ability to help people who've got accessibility needs, visitors to our country, people who have got disabilities. so, the ticket office is a hub, it's the centre of the station. it's where people know they can get assistance. so, there will be a new role for ticket offices. but we think slashing them and cutting them isn't the answer. it's the same as in your village, you don't want your pub to shut, you don't want your post office, your pharmacy — you want all of those services to be there. women and others using railway services want to know those stations will be properly staffed, not de—staffed. we've been here before. the railway, when it

was privatised, was stripped of its staff — it became a mugger�*s paradise, in some areas of the country. we want to properly staff properly safe railway. do you reckon it's important, though, to look at what you could learn from other places, other countries, other systems? for example, in sweden in 2021, they closed down their final ticket offices. they have staff roving around stations helping customers, as you say, but they don't need ticket offices any more. why can't you learn, for example, from that? well, we do learn from them, and we learnt from the way the system was privatised here in britain — many of those places became hostile areas. now the swedish railway may fund staffing in a different way and they may have made agreements with their unions on how the staffing will be provided... flexibility. yeah, but we don't have any of those minimum staffing level agreements that they may have in other countries. there are many countries where the loss of ticket offices, the loss of public service on the railway has been

at a price, and people feel very afraid of it. and we had all that in the �*90s as well. but you surely can't be afraid of flexibility, because it means that the industry that you care about and work within thrives, notjust survives, but thrives. so, one other example — because again, it's important — the driver—only operated trains. you've said there's no way there'll be any deal which introduces more driver—only operated trains, but they're already... 30% of the rail network in the uk is driver—only operated. and if you look at a host of countries abroad, they've totally embraced this idea of driver—only operations. so, why are you so dead set against it? well, it's not a majority position in most countries. most trains in europe have a guard on them. and we believe... i can read you a whole list of countries which have embraced driver—only operations. well, they have an element of driver—only operation, but it won't be the majority in most of the countries. so, we believe it's a safer system to have a guard

there, to have a second safety critical person. and they not only operate the railway, they have a knowledge of the route, they have a knowledge of the traction, overhead current, third rails and all the rest of it. and during evacuations, during the big crisis we've had and the accidents, the guard at the stonehaven accident last year evacuated that train and called the emergency services as a first response. right, but the rail and safety board has analysed a whole heap of evidence going back years... they are an employers�* organisation... what, so you just think they're liars? because their data... i think they've got, stephen... ..the data shows that there's no discernible difference in safety... i think they've got an agenda. you have to pay your levy to that organisation if you hold a railway contract in britain, and they are carrying out the agenda of the railway companies. they are not independent, they are not even impartial. they are there to do the work of the train operating company. so, just again, in terms of this dispute — we'll get on to bigger questions in a minute — but in

terms of the dispute, you said in december, you will not accept any deal that involves further roll—out of driver—only. .. no, we won't. absolutely clear, that is union policy, and it's a red line. the employers understand that. they've understood it for many years, that's why they haven't brought in... we've just done a new deal with mersey rail and in other companies, transport for wales, where we've maintained the second person, we've changed the mode of operation, and it's appreciated. it's only where the tories, the dft, the department for transport, has the writ to dictate the terms that 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 them 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, yourfamily 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. 0ur 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 notjust 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. a valentine�*s day of wardrobe dilemmas on the way for some of you. frosty and the place is foggy start. but by the afternoon spring like warmth 60 to 70 degrees possible in northwest wales well above the eight degree average for this stage in the month, but not quite as warm as our warmest valentine�*s day recorded in 1998. so why the warmth? well, we�*re on the western side of this massive area of high pressure,

keeping things dry across much of europe, because we�*re on the western side, we�*ve got a suddenly wind developing. but before that really gets going, most notably in western areas where temperatures above freezing. elsewhere, a frosty start to the day, minus four, minus five in one or two spots, and some dense patches of fog, particularly across central, eastern and southern parts of england and south east wales. that fog could actually develop a bit through the morning rush hourfor some lingering until we get to lunchtime. but a lot of sunshine to come for many a bit more cloud. western wales, north west england. the odd splash of rain always cloudier though. western scotland. northern ireland with more of a breeze. here again, some rain, a drizzle at times. so a lot of dry weather, bright weather. but look at the temperatures, 13 degrees, moray firth, 15,16, north devon, maybe ten, 16 and 17 northwest wales, but across western areas, particularly northern ireland. watch for the sun set in the evening. southerly winds ahead of this weather front will bring some saharan dust to the skies. as i said, northern ireland and western scotland could be treated to the best of the sunset, but it will be replaced by rain as we go through the night. rain spreading its way and dropping some of that dust onto the cars for the morning.

it�*s not going to reach eastern areas. so we�*ll stay clear here. still a chance of frost, but not as cold as the night we have at the moment. and that�*s because there�*ll be more of a breeze, not as much fog around, but a bright start, sunny start in eastern areas, western areas starts cloudy, outbreaks of rain, outbreaks of rain fizzle as it pushes eastwards across england into the midlands, central southern england. by the end of the afternoon, east anglia and the southeast will stay dry and clear into the evening. mild here, 13, 1a degrees, a little bit fresh elsewhere. but then as we go into thursday, a murky and actually wet start for many across england and wales, not seeing that for a while. that rain, though, will clear through still lots of cloud around the odd bit of brightness, driest, brightest the further north you are. and again, temperatures still above where we should be for this stage in february. but there�*s more rain gathering to northern ireland later on and that�*s this area of low pressure which will bring rain across the north,

but increasingly strong winds. so through thursday night into friday, one thing to watch out for is potentially strong to gale force winds for many. see you soon.

welcome to newsday, reporting live from singapore, i�*m karishma vaswani. the headlines... the us defends its decision to shoot down unidentified flying objects. washington and beijing accuse each other of aerial espionage. we were able to determine that china has a high altitude ballon programme for intelligence collection that is connected to peoples' liberation army. one week on and the death toll from the earthquakes in turkey and syria reaches 37,000, and that number is expected to double. everything we had was here. even my children are crying now, they are saying, "mum, everything is gone." "0ur childhood is gone." we�*ll also be reporting from a hospital in southern turkey where staff are overwhelmed by the scale of the tragedy.