British Airways union Unite announces 20 more strike days

[Rupert_Baehr]

Workers do indeed have a right to strike.

 

Unfortunately, the right to strike is not counter-balanced by an obligation to act in such a manner as would not destroy your co-workers' jobs.

 

Wildcat said: '55 are suspended on trumped up charges and facing the sack and everyone that has striked is facing the removal of a "perk".' (Thanks for that, WC)

 

Removal of a perk:

 

Let's imagine I run a corner shop and have one employee (KISS Principle.)

 

I pay my employee a bit more than the shopkeeper on the other corner (mainly because I want to keep him), I give him the required amount of holidays and - in accordance with the law and common practice - I give him a (paid) 15 minute tea break every 4 hours.

 

Not only do I give him a paid tea break, but (because I'm a good employer) I provide 'tea and a wad' at no charge! (Not like the skinflint bugger across the street.)

 

Then my employee becomes dissatisfied.

 

He says he's going on strike.

 

I can't stop him. - He's entitled to withdraw his labour.

 

But I tell him that if he goes on strike, then he can kiss goodbye to the 'tea and a wad.' It wasn't a part of his official remuneration (If it had been, then you can bet that the Infernal Retinue would've been taxing him on it, wouldn't they?)

 

My employee has really p*ssed me off! Perhaps it shouldn't have gone so far ... had I been a better manager (or had my employee had access to a competent union who could've negotiated better on his behalf) then we wouldn't be in this mess.

 

Didn't happen.

 

How sad.

 

I'm an old fart. Ready to retire. There's not as much money in corner shops as there used to be (don't believe that guys... there's a fortune to be made if you get it right )

 

But anyway. I want to quit. Too little money around, too much ash in the air, my pension plan is a mess and I'm looking for a way out.

 

Aren't I lucky! - I've got an incompetent 1970's -style 'ArthurScoggle' type Union which is going to make life really easy for me.

 

I can fold the unprofitable business, sell the premises off to the chippy which was looking for a site and I'm laughing!

 

Post 1

[Wildcat]

Rupert, not sure where your analogy is going, but we aren't dealing with an incompetent 1970's -style 'ArthurScoggle' type Union, we are talking about the biggest union in the country that wants this dispute like it wants a hole in the head.

 

It simply doesn't fit in well with the general election and getting Labour back in power. Woodley and Simpson would be perfectly aware that it would be diffidult to get good publicity with the story.

 

BA is not Willie Walsh's company to destroy. The shareholders need to wake up and either reign him in or sack him, because he is the one causing the problems.

[Rupert_Baehr]

I haven't flown with BA for a long time.

 

The last time I flew with BA, it was called BEA (Better On A Camel was an entirely separate organisation.)

 

I did enjoy flying with BEA. - The seats were comfortable (I had a pretty good view out of the window) the coffee was excellent (as were most of the people who brought it to me) and the money wasn't too shabby, either.

 

Things changed.

 

Back then my girlfriend (Cabin crew) had gold (I kid you not!) cutlery in the flat. Came from the First Class section. We lived well, ate well, were paid well.

 

That's what life was about.

 

Boring - but bloody well-paid.

 

I went elsewhere. - Far better flying, but plastic cutlery, no perks, no stewardesses (the only thing I missed ) and rather less money. (But at least I didn't have to fly at exalted altitudes all of the time ... you can get a nosebleed if you fly higher than 200 feet, you know.):hihi:

 

I still have contacts in civil aviation. For example: A Brother-in-Law who's a Captain for a US major (and doesn't make anywhere near as much money as I used to when I was doing that crap) and a friend who is a recently-retired Chief Pilot for a major Airline.

 

The world has changed. I retired a while ago. Things were good (lots of money for the companies, so they didn't really have to work too hard) during the 80's and 90's, but then things changed. Even before the 11th of September, things changed. Life got hard.

 

BA Cabin crews need to learn this. You do not live in Mr Rogers' neighborhood. The salary scams your colleagues enjoyed in the late 70's 80's and early 90's are ancient history.

 

Life is hard and there are plenty of people who can do your job.

 

When I was a youth, BEA and BOAC were the Flag Carrier. They made a resounding loss (the gold cutlery we [and others] had in our flat didn't help ) but the company ethos was 'provide exceptional service to our exceptional customers irrespective of price.'

 

We did that. We treated our passengers as Gods (which was why I flew Merchantmen :hihi:) but we were funded to enable us to do so.

 

Subsequently, the funding dried up and when the company was de-nationalised it went through (or rather failed to go through) a traumatic change of style.

 

BA has never had a good record of industrial relations. That - I suggest - is down to the very poor handoff when it was first de-nationalised. There was a core assumption that 'we are the best' and although the company probably was the best, nobody bothered to fund that level of excellence (Concorde was almost a separate company.)

 

I do feel sorry for the BA Cabin Staff. Not because they've been treated shabbily - they haven't. They're treated better than almost everybody else in the industry - but rather because it seems that nobody has explained to them that they are not living in the 1970's, that they are no longer goddesses (mine were ) and they are now obliged to compete with lesser mortals. When I was flying for the airlines the money was good and the cabin crew were good, too. That was life.

 

Nowadays, I'm sure that the cabin crew are every bit as professional, but the comparative pay rates are lower, the job status is less and those are sad facts of life.

 

Competition is fierce.

[Kingmaker2]

Reading these posts as someonne with no axe to grind wildcat seems to be winning the arguement at the moment.

Bashing people from outside because they exercise their rights to strike is not really a good counter arguement to the points wildcat makes.

 

I think there is a much bigger argument that you have failed to mention.

 

The financially precarious situation BA find themselves in, any stike at this time only risks further job cuts in other sectors of BA.

Indeed the future of BA is at risk, would you be so supportive of a strike if the company were to fold in the not so distant future?

[Davekowl]

I'm a member of Unite although I work in the engineering sector. A colleague of mine

(also a member) looks like losing out on a trip to the USA because of the strike.

Strange that his own union is depriving him of his trip of a lifetime !!!

[RonJeremy]

You said before:

 

 

 

So how can you comment on your experience of the way employment tribunals are populated if the only case you have been involved in was dropped before it got there? Telling fibs to make your point? surely not...

I can't see where I said it was the only one I was involved in?

Please don't make things up - even if you are "disobedient"

Some people don't however run companies for that purpose, they asset strip them and line their pockets at the expense of the workers, customers and the company.

Their money, their businesses - I wouldn't do it - I prefer to run a business.

 

Anyway you're just putting up a smokescreen to conceal the point.

[Uptowngirl]

Rupert, not sure where your analogy is going, but we aren't dealing with an incompetent 1970's -style 'ArthurScoggle' type Union, we are talking about the biggest union in the country that wants this dispute like it wants a hole in the head.

 

It simply doesn't fit in well with the general election and getting Labour back in power. Woodley and Simpson would be perfectly aware that it would be diffidult to get good publicity with the story.

 

BA is not Willie Walsh's company to destroy. The shareholders need to wake up and either reign him in or sack him, because he is the one causing the problems.

 

Well at least you realise that Scargill was an incompetent.

Yes certainly staff have a right to strike, but an employer should have the right to take on staff who are happy to work under the terms on offer. BA cannot afford to pay the staff at current levels. They are making massive losses.

From a shareholders point of view a company cannot carry on making huge losses and the best answer in the current situation would be to assett strip the airline. The planes, buildings, equipment and in particular the airport slots are worth more than the company. BA would be better off selling off the non working elements and making staff redundant. A loss of £300 million per annum is not currently rewarding shareholders for their investments.

[eastbank]

why dont BA just dissolve the company...and then rebrand it....and offer new contracts...problem solved....if you want to work...fine...if not go work somewhere else..

[HeadingNorth]

Breaking news: BA wins a court injunction to stop the strikes from going ahead.

 

I don't yet know whether it's a temporary injunction pending some decision, or if the strikes have been banned outright. Links to follow.

 

(link added: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10119196.stm)

[Donkey lover]

I know of a certain someone that is sighing a huge sigh of relief!

 

Not all the cabin crew agree with striking, most of them do however agree with the issues that haven't made it into the public domain.

 

This is what has made this thread a joke at times. Not one of you really know the full details yet are willing to post as though you do.