kevster Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 strike illegal, court rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 And what is the position of the strikers, i.e. exactly why they are striking? It matters not whether this Walsh person is working for nothing, as Chief Executive he would have been raking in ridiculous and unjustified wages up until this point. He isn't in the same boat as those MUCH farther down the ladder. Those who took unpaid leave and those who work part-time are no doubt those who aren't in any other position but to do so. They would either believe that they have no prospects elsewhere (which may be true) or believe that things will get better or they may unfortunately even believe that taking unpaid leave or working part-time is something they SHOULD do once it has been proposed (pushed) to them by the company. If BA can't or won't pay its staff what they should get then the mentality of the workers should be to grab as much as they can and look for something else whilst the 'ship sinks'. Read this - seems the union could be misleading the crew http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/ba-cabin-...068b46b39e.html My view - If they strike, sack the lot and re-hire under the new terms and conditions. That would include massive paycuts to most. But as it would be open to other airline's crews, I suggest many would be eager to jump in the direction of BA for a pay rise. Especially those in today's defunct scottish airline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 strike illegal, court rules Hooray for common sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 The strike would have damaged the business and the brand and potentially devalued it immensely, driving customers to other carriers. All this would have reduced the share price and the company's market share which would have made the proposed merger with Liberia even easier. Some cynics may suggest that BA's strategy with the Unions is deliberately robust to try and provoke the inevitable action and facilitate the merger. Looks like Willie miscalculated the Courts though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 It is a travesty to have the legal system (the State) determining whether people can strike. Reading the article above, however, it is also wrong that some were apparently misled into thinking that this was a short strike in January. All decisions and the courses of action should be made democratically. And frankly, considering why they are striking (http://www.unitetheunion.com/campaigns/ba_united_we_stand.aspx), I think they are doing the right thing by taking action against BA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheesypeas Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 It is a travesty to have the legal system (the State) determining whether people can strike. Reading the article above, however, it is also wrong that some were apparently misled into thinking that this was a short strike in January. All decisions and the courses of action should be made democratically. And frankly, considering why they are striking (http://www.unitetheunion.com/campaigns/ba_united_we_stand.aspx), I think they are doing the right thing by taking action against BA. Total bollix as usual. They are losing £1.5 per day for fooks sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 £1.5 million. Oh dear. But so what? Because they are losing so much you expect to workers accept redundancies, cut-backs in pay, have them pressured into taking voluntary unpaid leave, etc. Fuck 'em, if BA collapses it is the fault of those who manage and direct the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 £1.5 million. Oh dear. But so what? Err. Well if your losing £1.5m a day you sort of, you know, like, have no money to pay people with. I know its a bit of a weird concept but companies that have no money can't pay bills, or salaries, or anything really. Add to this the £3.6bn pension deficit they have they probably can't pay their pensions either. Its a funny old system when the taxpayer does not pay your wage and fund your lifestyle - when the money runs out and your employer can't pay you your a bit buggered really. I think the official terminology for that is "a recession" or if worse "a depression". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 £1.5 million. Oh dear. But so what? Because they are losing so much you expect to workers accept redundancies, cut-backs in pay, have them pressured into taking voluntary unpaid leave, etc. Fuck 'em, if BA collapses it is the fault of those who manage and direct the company. well not really. the managers of BA has seen how they can solve the problem and have put there plan of action in to work. but a load of over paid assholes wont let them. so for the sake of one group of people 10000s could be out of work and on the dole. is that what you would like to see LDV, 1000s of people losing there home there life. more than a few will turn to crime drugs etc, and a few more will prob kill themselfs. and your quite happy at that outcome are you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acorn Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 £1.5 million. Oh dear. But so what? Because they are losing so much you expect to workers accept redundancies, cut-backs in pay, have them pressured into taking voluntary unpaid leave, etc. Fuck 'em, if BA collapses it is the fault of those who manage and direct the company. well not really. the managers of BA has seen how they can solve the problem and have put there plan of action in to work. but a load of over paid assholes wont let them. so for the sake of one group of people 10000s could be out of work and on the dole. is that what you would like to see LDV, 1000s of people losing there home there life. more than a few will turn to crime drugs etc, and a few more will prob kill themselfs. and your quite happy at that outcome are you. A couple of things make me think a bit. What happened to all the profits during the good times? Why on earth criticise people who are trying to protect, so far, decent jobs? Do you believe that everybody should work for the minimum wage, along with crap conditions of employment ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 £1.5 million. Oh dear. But so what? Because they are losing so much you expect to workers accept redundancies, cut-backs in pay, have them pressured into taking voluntary unpaid leave, etc. Fuck 'em, if BA collapses it is the fault of those who manage and direct the company. well not really. the managers of BA has seen how they can solve the problem and have put there plan of action in to work. but a load of over paid assholes wont let them. so for the sake of one group of people 10000s could be out of work and on the dole. is that what you would like to see LDV, 1000s of people losing there home there life. more than a few will turn to crime drugs etc, and a few more will prob kill themselfs. and your quite happy at that outcome are you. A couple of things make me think a bit. What happened to all the profits during the good times? Why on earth criticise people who are trying to protect, so far, decent jobs? Do you believe that everybody should work for the minimum wage, along with crap conditions of employment ? At £28k i think thats well above the minimum wage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acorn Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 £1.5 million. Oh dear. But so what? Because they are losing so much you expect to workers accept redundancies, cut-backs in pay, have them pressured into taking voluntary unpaid leave, etc. Fuck 'em, if BA collapses it is the fault of those who manage and direct the company. well not really. the managers of BA has seen how they can solve the problem and have put there plan of action in to work. but a load of over paid assholes wont let them. so for the sake of one group of people 10000s could be out of work and on the dole. is that what you would like to see LDV, 1000s of people losing there home there life. more than a few will turn to crime drugs etc, and a few more will prob kill themselfs. and your quite happy at that outcome are you. A couple of things make me think a bit. What happened to all the profits during the good times? Why on earth criticise people who are trying to protect, so far, decent jobs? Do you believe that everybody should work for the minimum wage, along with crap conditions of employment ? At £28k i think thats well above the minimum wage I'm not familiar with BA pay scales so have no idea what their cabin crews earn. Presume, from your confident response, that your knowledge is greater than mine. Nonetheless if £28k p.a. is accurate, I'd say good luck to them. Instead of ostracising them for achieving decent levels of remuneration and conditions of employment, other ordinary workers should seek to achieve something similar within their own respective workplaces. After all there's certainly been good times, for the vast majority of employers, especially in the air industry, where's the cash gone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 It is a travesty to have the legal system (the State) determining whether people can strike. LDV I think if you read in more detail, that one of the reasons it was classed as being illegal is that a good number of the yes votes for the strike came from employees who had just been or was about to be made redundant. Therefore I think the law lords making this strike illegal until a vote had been gathered by CURRENT employees had been made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 I'm not familiar with BA pay scales so have no idea what their cabin crews earn. Presume, from your confident response, that your knowledge is greater than mine. Nonetheless if £28k p.a. is accurate, I'd say good luck to them. Instead of ostracising them for achieving decent levels of remuneration and conditions of employment, other ordinary workers should seek to achieve something similar within their own respective workplaces. After all there's certainly been good times, for the vast majority of employers, especially in the air industry, where's the cash gone? But we are not in the good times anymore so people have to see they may not get as much as they did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted December 19, 2009 Share Posted December 19, 2009 It is a travesty to have the legal system (the State) determining whether people can strike. LDV I think if you read in more detail, that one of the reasons it was classed as being illegal is that a good number of the yes votes for the strike came from employees who had just been or was about to be made redundant. Therefore I think the law lords making this strike illegal until a vote had been gathered by CURRENT employees had been made. What I am referring to is the fact that the government takes a role in matters such as this to punish those who take action against their employers. This is wrong. I don't think (obviously) the State should have any role in determining what workers can or cannot do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.