Why do we hate Unions? Look at BA...

Geeves1980

Cleaver wrote: »

I have to be honest and say that if you'd asked me this morning what cabin crew earned I would have guessed at about £17 for short haul basic, maybe £27k for long haul and possibly up to £35k for supervisors. To find it's £26k, £35k and up to £56k was quite shocking.

They have my respect for doing a difficult job, as everyone does. But their pay seems pretty good to me.

I'm quite surprised by the salary also. If those figures are correct, they do appear well paid, compared to the salary suggested for Virgin cabin crew. Why such a difference?

Considering the limited qualifications and skills required for the job, could they expect to earn 35k if BA did go under and they had to find jobs in another sector?

I would say their job is more 'inconvenient' than difficult (altough I suppose it depends what you class as difficult) and their salary should reflect this, which I think it does. Are the changes to their terms and conditions so unmanagable and determinetal to their lives and wellbeing that the job isn't worth the relatively good salary?

I'm not knocking air hostesses either, they do a necessary job and I'm glad they are there to do it. I just can't support their decision to strike when their actions have unpleasant consequences for their passengers.

C_Mababejive

ThrowingStonesAtYou wrote: »

If the pay and conditions are that bad there are plenty of other airline companies and the staff are free to leave. Of course, the reality is that the pay and conditions are by far the best in the industry.

I doubt that BA employees are saying their T&Cs are bad.

What they are saying is that they do not wish to have them eroded.

That is the modern way you see. Many companies,including my own,are using the recssion as an excuse to cane their employees,creating a climate of fear and seeking to erode their pay and conditions.

So its not about BAD pay,its about threats to erode.

ThrowingStonesAtYou

C_Mababejive wrote: »

I doubt that BA employees are saying their T&Cs are bad.

What they are saying is that they do not wish to have them eroded.

That is the modern way you see. Many companies,including my own,are using the recssion as an excuse to cane their employees,creating a climate of fear and seeking to erode their pay and conditions.

So its not about BAD pay,its about threats to erode.

I wish to be paid £500k a week, but my skills don't warrant it, so I'm not going to go on strike about it.

You can't (well, shouldn't) go on strike just because you want to be overpaid for the skills and experience you have. If you warrant better pay and conditions you can get them elsewhere. It's exactly these type of inert and lazy employees who allow employment benefits to be eroded, they play into the employers hands by staying put rather than going elsewhere and generating competition amoungst employers for the best employees - which means the employers offer better terms.

Mutton_Geoff

If anyone would like to see the figures that the press are referring to, the CAA publish their UK Airline Stats on this page with the 2008 figures here.

BA cabin crew paid, on average, 50% more than the next airline down and almost double the going rate for the job

ILW

On a positive note, if all them planes are cancelled, we have probably prevented global warming so all the stupid green taxes can be dumped and I can go and buy that Discovery I've always fancied.
Up the workers!

C_Mababejive

ThrowingStonesAtYou wrote: »

I wish to be paid £500k a week, but my skills don't warrant it, so I'm not going to go on strike about it.

You can't (well, shouldn't) go on strike just because you want to be overpaid for the skills and experience you have. If you warrant better pay and conditions you can get them elsewhere. It's exactly these type of inert and lazy employees who allow employment benefits to be eroded, they play into the employers hands by staying put rather than going elsewhere and generating competition amoungst employers for the best employees - which means the employers offer better terms.

We almost agree. I do not carp about my T&Cs becuase i know that I'm probably at the top of my game and i am relatively happy. I wouldnt go on strike becuase of my T&Cs. What I would take action for is to fend off bully boy management (of which we have some) and attempts to downgrade/cut my T&Cs. Sometimes you have to "Stay put" becuase you are locked into things like FS pension schemes /sharesaves and similar and you would stand to loose by leaving.

C_Mababejive

Mutton_Geoff wrote: »

If anyone would like to see the figures that the press are referring to, the CAA publish their UK Airline Stats on this page with the 2008 figures here.

BA cabin crew paid, on average, 50% more than the next airline down and almost double the going rate for the job

Are we saying that "expenditure per head " = wages?

If so,the next question must be,how have BA staff moved to this superior position over the years?

I think that if a company has hit bad times,then EVERYONE from CEO downwards,should take a proportional hit to help the company.

BA are obviously in a poor financial state. Walsh must get the chop and they need to bring someone else in who can,in a firm but fair manner,apply economic sense and get his employees to understand the position they are in.

ILW

C_Mababejive wrote: »

BA are obviously in a poor financial state. Walsh must get the chop and they need to bring someone else in who can,in a firm but fair manner,apply economic sense and get his employees to understand the position they are in.

I wonder how he finds the time, what with judging X Factor at the weekends.

StevieJ

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Are we saying that "expenditure per head " = wages?

If so,the next question must be,how have BA staff moved to this superior position over the years?

I think that if a company has hit bad times,then EVERYONE from CEO downwards,should take a proportional hit to help the company.

BA are obviously in a poor financial state. Walsh must get the chop and they need to bring someone else in who can,in a firm but fair manner,apply economic sense and get his employees to understand the position they are in.

Maybe they entered a forward fuel price contract when oil was at $150

C_Mababejive

StevieJ wrote: »

Maybe they entered a forward fuel price contract when oil was at $150

Well im not sure what BA hedged at...i guess they all do and some you win,some you loose. I have a small vested interested being a shareholder. I'm not a big enough shareholder to boot Mr walsh though