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

ben500

Why not just sack a few of the lazy arsed exec's if they need to shuffle finances? Not a snowballs chance in hell of that is there? No doubt there will be large severance cheques even if they did. Work hard earn less is the principle that seems to be followed in this country.

I agree to some extent that any trades union resorting to strike action has failed it's members to a certain extent, that being said as another poster pointed out strikes can and often are engineered by management as they seldom get public support and ultimately management gain more leverage as a result, usually going on to carry far more draconian measures than originally planned in their new found strength.

Rest assured it is most likely BA management who will benefit from the proposed action and any competent trades union official would most recognise this and be reluctant to take his or her membership out, there is far more to this than a few trolley dollies getting their knickers in a twist over losing an in flight chat mate.

The_White_Horse

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I've already said that some people don't know when they have it good.

I just took issue with your trolley dolly approach and looking down the snout at them.

In any other career...
- Being responsible for the health and safety of 100's of people
- Being the person responsible for saving lives
- Filling in flight reports, customs forms, health reports
- Not being able to get home on your day off
- Spending the majority of holidays on your own in a foreign country unable to be with family
- Sometimes extreme hours
....would have you on a hell of a lot more than 35k.

Sure, it sounds nice, you get to spend your day off in South Africa. But you can't exactly catch up with the housework, take the kids to the park etc, before going back to work after having had your "day off" in limbo in another country.

I think the wage BA are paying is very good for the average wage for that job.

I just took issue with your "handing out a sandwich" comment.

to be honest, if BA had a flight to NY from London with cabin crew that cost 500quid and one where there was no meal and no cabin crew that cost 200 quid, I know which one I would be on.

Just sack them all and hire one bloke to make sure people can get out in an emergency (along with the two pilots). That is a bloke for the front middle and back. sorted.

Sack all of them. greedy hateful little sh1ts

aardvaak

The_White_Horse wrote: »

to be honest, if BA had a flight to NY from London with cabin crew that cost 500quid and one where there was no meal and no cabin crew that cost 200 quid, I know which one I would be on.

Just sack them all and hire one bloke to make sure people can get out in an emergency (along with the two pilots). That is a bloke for the front middle and back. sorted.

Sack all of them. greedy hateful little sh1ts

Sack all of them.

You could be right - Was'nt this what Pres. Reagan did with the Air traffic controllers in the 80's?

vivatifosi

This is so depressing. As some of you know DH works for BA. Isn't cabin crew, isn't going on strike but we're obviously worried for the future.

I'm most sad for the poor ground staff, who a) get paid less than cabin crew, b) aren't going on strike and c) are going to have to take all the flak from the public about this.

However more than anything else I want to bang both sides heads together.

The management has to realise why people in the unions are angry: they are angry that a lot of the losses were caused by the management not them (remember cartels, etc), they are angry that their terms and conditions are being eroded. The management on the other hand are annoyed that they can't get the changes through that they want to make to save the airline.

I don't understand why Gatwick crew would be willing to go out to support Heathrow crew when the changes have already been made there: their salaries, aiui are lower and they already fly with one fewer crew member. Why lose 12 days pay for a principle that's already part of your T&Cs (and when you're already on a less substantial package as a result)? Maybe there's more to it and someone from Gatwick will answer because I genuinely don't get it.

There has to be some middle ground. If Walsh was a true leader, rather than a bean-counting numpty, he'd go to the unions, say we are all going to take a cut, but if we can all turn round the airline together, while we won't be able to put your pay back up, we will reward you with profit share related bonuses. That way EVERYONE at BA would be responsible for rebuilding the firm over what will undoubtably be a lot of tough years. But he won't do that because he isn't a leader.

Spartacus_Mills

nearlynew wrote: »

Doesn't make it any less true though.


I don't give a f*ck whether they win, lose or draw in their battle over pay and conditions.
And I don't give a f*ck for anyone who is inconvenienced by a cancelled flight.

But I do give a f*ck out people's right to strike. And on that point I support what they're doing.

I do agree that workers have a right to withdraw their labour, that is a legal right and I see nothing fundamentally wrong with that.

I would even support strikes in some cases, such as health and safety issues, although not in this one which is really about trying to preserve the unpreservable.

Where you lost me was on your appalling comments about people inconveniences by these strikers. Utterly loathsome comments.

I don't know if you have grasped this but for BA to survive and thrive they need the very people you do not appear to give a toss about. Their paying customers. Drive them into the arms of other carriers and BA will have to make more cuts and it becomes a vicious circle. Their customers are decent working people who save up for a week or two in the sun and do not need the stress and worry about whether or not their flight will be cancelled or not. You may see this as an inconvenience, I see it as a downright liberty and it shows how little the cabin staff care about their customers. This happens quite regularly either over Xmas or during the peak summer periods. BA go on strike for one reason or another. After this little lot who in their right mind would book a BA flight for peak season next summer. They should take a leaf out of the Postal Workers book, get the mandate and take the moral high ground by taking a step back and holding the strike threat in reserve. They won't though.

They are truly Turkeys voting for Xmas. They deserve all that is coming to them and more.

Spartacus_Mills

aardvaak wrote: »

I don't agree with the strike - However I can never understand why people have to make the mad dash out of the country at Christmas - whats wrong with having Christmas here - I am - I thought everyone was supposed to be hard up at present!

Well given the miserable, damp, cold weather we endure at Xmas I can understand it. But it is a free world and it takes different strokes to move the world.

I went to Aussie at Xmas a few years ago and it was great. I worked hard, saved for months to pay for it.

I would have been devastated if I had lost that holiday due to the actions of a group of slacker cabin staff at BA.

Spartacus_Mills

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.

Although I do agree about the approach of some companies to the recession the situation at BA is different.

Not every company is losing £600 Million a year and has a £3.7 Billion pension deficit. Their staff are paid well, I will not say overpaid as they negotiated a market rate at the time, but it is time for it all to be looked at again and if terms need to be eroded to keep BA going then so be it.

kennyboy66_2

ThrowingStonesAtYou wrote: »

The union members are not forced to do anything. They are free to leave and go work somewhere else if they don't like the terms of their job. Even the most 'simple-minded' should be able to understand that.

And as their terns of their job are being significantly changed they are also entitled to withdraw their labour.

You make not like it but thats the current law.

Even the most 'simple-minded' should be able to understand that.

kennyboy66_2

vivatifosi wrote: »

I don't understand why Gatwick crew would be willing to go out to support Heathrow crew when the changes have already been made there: their salaries, aiui are lower and they already fly with one fewer crew member. Why lose 12 days pay for a principle that's already part of your T&Cs (and when you're already on a less substantial package as a result)? Maybe there's more to it and someone from Gatwick will answer because I genuinely don't get it.

Well said Viva, although as I understand it the changes have been imposed already or are about to be accross the board. The crewing issue is a bit of a red herring for most of the staff, the additional crew out of Heathrow is generally to service the 1st and Business class passengers.

I know 1 person who is long haul cabin crew at BA. There is an acceptance that they are well paid by industry comparisons and accept that some T & Cs particularly on allowances (which make up a large part of take home pay) will be eroded. They simply won't accept changes being imposed by an arrogant and out of touch management.

The main issue is about money, some long haul staff reckon they will lose upto £4.5k per year in lost allowances.

Willie Walsh comes accross as a revolting individual as well as seemingly incapable of providing any leadership.

In his 4 years since he has been with BA they have stumbled from one crisis to another. He even had the front to take an extra £1 million in bonuses and other payments only 8 months after the debacle of opening T5.

torontoboy45

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Well said Viva, although as I understand it the changes have been imposed already or are about to be accross the board. The crewing issue is a bit of a red herring for most of the staff, the additional crew out of Heathrow is generally to service the 1st and Business class passengers.

I know 1 person who is long haul cabin crew at BA. There is an acceptance that they are well paid by industry comparisons and accept that some T & Cs particularly on allowances (which make up a large part of take home pay) will be eroded. They simply won't accept changes being imposed by an arrogant and out of touch management.

The main issue is about money, some long haul staff reckon they will lose upto £4.5k per year in lost allowances.

Willie Walsh comes accross as a revolting individual as well as seemingly incapable of providing any leadership.

In his 4 years since he has been with BA they have stumbled from one crisis to another. He even had the front to take an extra £1 million in bonuses and other payments only 8 months after the debacle of opening T5.

well said.

and isn't it pathetic when people, like the OP and others, rush to blame the TU/staff before stopping to take a look at the wider picture and question the co.'s leadership.

BA's performance has been under scrutiny for yrs (the joke redesign of tail-fins, the gate gourmet/handlers fiasco,check-in staff walking out en masse, declaring 'the job's no longer worth it', the non-argument about an employee's right to wear a crucifix pendant and - the crowning turd in the fresh water supply - the t5 disaster) so it's a bit rich to point the finger at front-line staff for the co.'s woes when the real culprit lies in a flawed business model.

bad enough for those travelling but I'm sure most won't fall for the daily mail-type rants I keep reading here.