Ba Strike

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Oh but they are. British Airlines recognised they were in trouble and resorted to making big cuts on their work force and pressuring airline staff to work voluntarily or part-time. In Oct 2009 they informed staff that there would be big changes to working conditions and staff numbers would reduce. The Union tried to stop this.

And the Unions and cabin crew have offered concessions. BA has rejected them completely.

You are a troll and I claim my £5.00.

 

The union is barely talking to the cabin crew over this. They are being particularly difficult. Even this new bit about the ground staff is a simple matter of BA writing to it's ground staff to ask their opinions on proposed options for new working practices. The union get wind of this and basically say " What are you doing talking to your staff? You talk to us not your employees."

 

Last week, the TUC who are acting as conciliation agent, said to BA - if you put your most recent offer to the cabin crew back on the table we think we can get Unite to accept it, as they were very close to accepting it before. BA's response was - ok it is back on the table provided they don't announce strike dates before considering it, or the offer will be withdrawn. The Unite leaders knew ecactly what they were doing when they announced the strike dates the next day. And, they were not acting in the best interests of the BA employees.

 

The point that nobody seems to be picking up on this is that the Union cannot win. BA is about to merge with Iberia and they got the go ahead (finally) for a tie up with American airlines.

I'm a troll? I don't think so. I don't post just for the purpose of winding people up.

 

I am no fan of the unions as they exist in Britain today, but they are one of the more effective ways in which workers can exert some leverage over their employer and protect themselves.

From what I have read, however, I get the impression that Unite have been communicating closely with the cabin crew.

 

Please explain what you mean about the cabin crew not winning in this situation. Are you saying that the cabin crew will never get what they are fighting for? With such a merger it sounds as if the cabin crew are completely absolved of any (needless) guilt over killing off the company.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

And such contracts are all very similar and involve the person signing over one's freedom and control of their work.

Contracts of employment are there to protect the rights of the employee as well as the employer.

Yes, that's right. And what parts are those? And why do those granted rights exist? I might almost think that you assume that it is a good deal for both. If you hadn't realised I have worked under contracts before and still do. I realise what the content is and why there are parts which protect my rights, but those rights are largely enforced and maintained by the State to protect the worker.

[TomTucker]

i work for an airline and for the past 6 months we have all been on 4 day week, this has saved the company several million pounds and along with redundancies and several other measures, now we are in the peak booking and flying period the company will have a successful year with a lower cost base.

 

if i had been asked to strike i would not have and i would not join a union as they are counter productive, some of my colleagues are in a different position though and cannot negotiate their pay and conditions without a union.

 

What Unite are doing is damaging BAs annual results, when we get to Q3 and BA makes another multi million pound loss who is going to be to blame for the further redundancies and cutbacks - blame the passengers?

[cheesypeas]

i work for an airline and for the past 6 months we have all been on 4 day week, this has saved the company several million pounds and along with redundancies and several other measures, now we are in the peak booking and flying period the company will have a successful year with a lower cost base.

 

if i had been asked to strike i would not have and i would not join a union as they are counter productive, some of my colleagues are in a different position though and cannot negotiate their pay and conditions without a union.

 

What Unite are doing is damaging BAs annual results, when we get to Q3 and BA makes another multi million pound loss who is going to be to blame for the further redundancies and cutbacks - blame the passengers?

 

 

You wouldn't join a union, good for you.

Seems Unite don't worry about employees votes, as they simply ballot people who don't even work for BA anymore. That's why the court told them to get stuffed first time.

 

This time the court are yet again sympathetic to BA's cause. No newspaper talk and no Sky News involved there. The court has said that they feel the measures BA are trying to put in place are reasonable. Quite unbiased I think.

 

Seems the union fails yet again. Personally I don't see Willie Walsh backing down on this one. Lots of blood to spill yet. The union rejected the offer on the table, and now they want it back on the table ! What a bunch of tossers.

 

Let's not bring up the miners strike, the union did really well there. This could follow a similar pattern.

 

Such a shame, one of the last decent British companies getting dicked around by a bunch of clowns, who can't see further than their own photo opportunity.

 

Come on Willie, stay strong (as Mrs. Peas would say).

[Cambon]

Please explain what you mean about the cabin crew not winning in this situation. Are you saying that the cabin crew will never get what they are fighting for? With such a merger it sounds as if the cabin crew are completely absolved of any (needless) guilt over killing off the company.

The bottom line is if the cabin crew don't accept the measures they will all be sacked and 10,000 jobs advertised. Then Unite will be shafted. BA been pretty fair throughout this whole situation. They wont kill off the company. Unless they back down from this weekends strike everyone will see how powerless the union really is.

[sarahc]

It does seem to be that the union is working for itself and not its members.

[TurricanII]

LDV, surely this has been covered in old topics.. You do not have to work for someone else - work for yourself. It is ALWAYS a choice. You might starve but it's a choice. Sensibly though, you choose to get a paid job, you can save up and then work for yourself. If BA are not making cash then it's unfortunate but costs have to be cut and the biggest cost is most likely to be staff wages. There is probably even some redundancy pay available if BA had to lay people off. If you choose to work for a company and excel at your chosen job then you will likely be given more money, promoted into a position where you can control your own work and make changes to improve the way the company works. It requires a bit of effort though and I get the feeling that you would spend more time whining than working towards better circumstances for yourself.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

i work for an airline and for the past 6 months we have all been on 4 day week, this has saved the company several million pounds and along with redundancies and several other measures, now we are in the peak booking and flying period the company will have a successful year with a lower cost base.

Hahaha, oh well that's understandable then. If the company saves a few million then it doesn't matter about the redundancies, reduction in working hours, and changed working conditions. Though I am sorry to hear you have been put in that situation.

 

What Unite are doing is damaging BAs annual results

But what the union is saying is that the changes that most of the cabin crew want will affect BA results to some degree, but would be a far better situation than having many people change their working conditions and far better than pushing the union to strike.

 

Cheesypeas

You wouldn't join a union, good for you.

Seems Unite don't worry about employees votes, as they simply ballot people who don't even work for BA anymore. That's why the court told them to get stuffed first time.

It is of concern when the union resorts to this. And the union has to operate democratically - and to be honest they aren't really democratic organisations.

 

But I have understandable scepticism of the decision of the courts to ban the strike. It is in the State interest to suppress or make difficult any collective worker action. No government is going to be sympathetic to large scale worker action.

 

The union rejected the offer on the table, and now they want it back on the table ! What a bunch of tossers.

That's not my understanding of the timeline of events. Besides, hypothetically speaking, if an offer was put forth by BA and the union rejected and then was now willing to accept it then why does that excuse BA from prolonging the conflict by changing their position.

 

Such a shame, one of the last decent British companies getting dicked around by a bunch of clowns, who can't see further than their own photo opportunity.

Are you trying to tell me that the fact the company is British should enter their (cabin crews) and our assessment of this situation? What a joke.

 

Cambon

The bottom line is if the cabin crew don't accept the measures they will all be sacked and 10,000 jobs advertised.

Ok, well what's problem. By far the majority of cabin crew voted to go with this. If they lose their jobs then they will look for another one. But better that they try and resist and see what they can do than do nothing and have those at the top make the decisions on how things will pan out, and to just hope for the best.

They don't want to kill off the company.

 

Unless they back down from this weekends strike everyone will see how powerless the union really is.

It clearly isn't powerless or you wouldn't have this fuss. But as with many other unions in many other situations it might not be able to effect the outcome that it wants. I am not that optimistic, I must say.

 

Turrican

LDV, surely this has been covered in old topics.. You do not have to work for someone else - work for yourself. Sensibly though, you choose to get a paid job, you can save up and then work for yourself.

It's not a choice open to all. It is an option available to a lot of people. But not the vast majority. And it very likely require a good degree of skill and talent to be self-employer whilst employing nobody for the rest of your working life.

 

There is probably even some redundancy pay available if BA had to lay people off.

You're missing that these cabin crew actually want to carry on working in their current job.

 

If you choose to work for a company and excel at your chosen job then you will likely be given more money, promoted into a position where you can control your own work and make changes to improve the way the company works. It requires a bit of effort though and I get the feeling that you would spend more time whining than working towards better circumstances for yourself.

Whilst being employed and moving up the ranks you can certainly increase to SOME degree the extent to which you can make choices in the workplace, but this doesn't equate to a large degree of control of one's productive abilities in employment.

And the fact is that only the few have the possibility of moving up the gradually thinner and thinner ranks to the top.

 

The extent to which one would also have to work to rise fast to the top through management in particular forms of work and working environment would involve an even greater 'selling of one's soul' for the outcome of just having that little bit more choice and much more money.

[When Skies Are Grey]

Strike to go global

 

 

"The Unite union has received backing from its US counterpart, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, as well as large European unions."

 

The "International Brotherhood of Teamsters" sounds like a euphamism for the mob to me!

[Right-Wing]

anyone who would put Thatcher as their avatar pic has to be taking the pic or truly nutty.)

 

Have you looked at your own avatar recently?

[jimbms]

anyone who would put Thatcher as their avatar pic has to be taking the pic or truly nutty.)

 

Have you looked at your own avatar recently?

You should have seen his previous one if you think that the current one is bad. BTW nothing wrong with Maggie, at least she had some guts inlike the one eyed jock or the arse licker Blair

[mæŋksmən]

Strike to go global

 

 

"The Unite union has received backing from its US counterpart, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, as well as large European unions."

 

The "International Brotherhood of Teamsters" sounds like a euphamism for the mob to me!

 

Yeah the hoffas have kept it in the family.

 

The union is now led by James Hoffa Jr, Jimmy Hoffa's son.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

anyone who would put Thatcher as their avatar pic has to be taking the pic or truly nutty.)

 

Have you looked at your own avatar recently?

You should have seen his previous one if you think that the current one is bad. BTW nothing wrong with Maggie, at least she had some guts inlike the one eyed jock or the arse licker Blair

The previous one was a flag. I don't admire people who have guts. Depends on what they do with those guts.

[Right-Wing]

I don't admire people who have guts. Depends on what they do with those guts.

 

I don't believe for a moment that you admire anyone. You certainly don't admire people who have:-

 

- been successful

- worked hard

- achieved anything

 

Go on who do you admire? Someone who has been the the best at going on strike? Sorry no you couldn't admire them, they achieved something! Someone who hasn't achieved anything other than not standing out from the crown. Damn no, they have achieved something as well.

[Right-Wing]

BTW nothing wrong with Maggie, at least she had some guts

 

Well said jimbms. She was an absolute bloody star, certainly the UK hasn't had a prime minister of anything like that caliber since, and to be realistic, probably won't have ever again. She'd be a very hard act to better. You couldn't get away with speaking your mind these days, the political correctness care bear bunch would have you locked up in jail for being <insert term>ist.