What's with all the strikes?

fraser

nearlynew wrote: »

"National carrier"


What does that mean?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways

fraser

StevieJ wrote: »

Hey hang on a minute :eek:

planes pretty much fly themselves these days, pilots are glorified bus drivers to some

I used to sit in the cabin when i was working there and watch pilots either land manually or use the computer to do it. used to have a bash myself - in the flight simulator at the hatton cross training centre

greendollar

I'd be very worried , I used to work on the railway and spent my first 6 weeks training in the classroom learning the theory before being placed on the job with a mentor for a further 3 months before I was let loose on the track . New recruits are now employed on a zero hour contract basis (max 16 hrs/per week,no holiday or sickness pay) and are required to learn on the job with a mentor as quickly as possible (3/4 weeks).
Nice to know these companies aren't making the most of the reccession and peoples fear of losing their jobs to cut their terms and conditions isn't it ?

custardy

greendollar wrote: »

I'd be very worried , I used to work on the railway and spent my first 6 weeks training in the classroom learning the theory before being placed on the job with a mentor for a further 3 months before I was let loose on the track . New recruits are now employed on a zero hour contract basis (max 16 hrs/per week,no holiday or sickness pay) and are required to learn on the job with a mentor as quickly as possible (3/4 weeks).
Nice to know these companies aren't making the most of the reccession and peoples fear of losing their jobs to cut their terms and conditions isn't it ?

same with RM
used to be weeks of training on the whole business of RM
then it gradually got whittled down
when i did it,you got 1 week in the 'classroom'
then one week walking with an experienced postie

now they get a day or two and they are on their own

JayScottGreenspan

I don't see the point of unions anymore. Employment law and safety regulations have developed to a point where you don't need to strike over safety. It's always just about money.

What do unions acheive these days? They give us BA staff getting paid well above the market rate. They give us tube drivers getting paid well above the market rate.

Do we want an employment market where 90% of jobs pay a normal rate, but where 10% pay well above that and have hundreds of applicants for each opening?
Do people like paying extortionate tube fares?

The_White_Horse

sack them all.

you get no training because its not needed. driving a train is EASY. a child could do it.

StevieJ

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

I don't see the point of unions anymore. Employment law and safety regulations have developed to a point where you don't need to strike over safety. It's always just about money.

What do unions acheive these days? They give us BA staff getting paid well above the market rate. They give us tube drivers getting paid well above the market rate.

Do we want an employment market where 90% of jobs pay a normal rate, but where 10% pay well above that and have hundreds of applicants for each opening?
Do people like paying extortionate tube fares?

Yes that normal rate has taken a serious hit since the demise of Trade unions.

JayScottGreenspan

StevieJ wrote: »

Yes that normal rate has taken a serious hit since the demise of Trade unions.

I wonder what percentage of people on this forum are in union jobs? Are they happy each time the RMT decides to dip into their pocket to prop up their massive egos?

The thing is, even if everyone worked in union jobs, they would still muck up the jobs market. People who happen to be in jobs where they can hold the country to ransom (eg train drivers, petrol tanker drivers) win the lottery. People who do jobs too important to be able to strike (nurses), or people who can't hold the country to ransom (anyone remember the New York doorman strike - did anyone notice?) get paid a pittance.

Is that what we want? The 'hold-the-country-to-ransom-bility' of a job to determine the salary? Or should it be determined by the befenfit it creates to society, the skill and training required, the general supply and demand of people willing to do the job at a given wage?

Up the minimum wage decent and cripple the unions, I say: break your contract and you might get the sack - controversial or what?

If 200 people are applying for each new job that means the salary's too high. If you can't fill the post that means the salary's too low. Get over it.

ukcarper

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

I wonder what percentage of people on this forum are in union jobs? Are they happy each time the RMT decides to dip into their pocket to prop up their massive egos?

The thing is, even if everyone worked in union jobs, they would still muck up the jobs market. People who happen to be in jobs where they can hold the country to ransom (eg train drivers, petrol tanker drivers) win the lottery. People who do jobs too important to be able to strike (nurses), or people who can't hold the country to ransom (anyone remember the New York doorman strike - did anyone notice?) get paid a pittance.

Is that what we want? The 'hold-the-country-to-ransom-bility' of a job to determine the salary? Or should it be determined by the befenfit it creates to society, the skill and training required, the general supply and demand of people willing to do the job at a given wage?

Up the minimum wage decent and cripple the unions, I say: break your contract and you might get the sack - controversial or what?

If 200 people are applying for each new job that means the salary's too high. If you can't fill the post that means the salary's too low. Get over it.

What you say is true but surely your last sentence shows how employers do the same thing.

Sir_Humphrey

JayScottGreenspan wrote: »

Is that what we want? The 'hold-the-country-to-ransom-bility' of a job to determine the salary? Or should it be determined by the befenfit it creates to society, the skill and training required, the general supply and demand of people willing to do the job at a given wage?

With respect, the best (relatively) paid public servants are Police Constables who have no right to strike.

What rather bowls the "holding the public to ransom" argument for a duck.

EDIT: A lot of people are missing the bigger picture: Workers are the same people as the consumers. If you carry on reducing wages, then you just make high consumer debt more and more vital for the future of the economy.

Henry Ford understood full well that you HAVE to pay your workers enough to buy your products. And he was not exactly a commie.