What's with all the strikes?

Sir_Humphrey

JasonLVC wrote: »

Unite so far have had to have two ballots as the first one was illegal (in unions law terms) and the second one had a marginal outcome....if it was such a strong mandate from the members, then BA would not have mustered 65% of their flights as normal.

The vote had a high turnout and a large majority in favour of striking.

If they manage to run 65% of services (let's see) then it because of employing scabs (further evidence of union busting).

JasonLVC

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The vote had a high turnout and a large majority in favour of striking.

If they manage to run 65% of services (let's see) then it because of employing scabs (further evidence of union busting).

...and is there a particular problem with 'union busting'?

The BA executives answer to the shareholders/owners and provided they operate within all the existing EU laws on employment, H&S, discrimination acts, etc then the business should be free to go about its business.

Unite see it differently and seem to want to run a major corporation themselves but without the responsibility of shareholders, business plans and banking agreements. Unite want to run the business from the outside, free of all the stresses that running a business brings.

I think staff wanting to protect their jobs by going into work and standing up to bullying and threat tactics of unions is not scabbing, but common sense prevailing and bravo to them for standing up to the bullies who threaten their very existence.

As for the ballot*, Unite said that 78.77% of the 11,691 ballot papers issued were returned. Of those 80.7% (7,482) supported taking action with 1,789 voting against it, so hardly out and out majority (and the first ballot had a higher turnout becuase of all those ex-staff and dead employees) and so this second ballot was lower than the first and not truly representative of the entire company, just the members of the union.

*I've no issue with the balloting process, (the only good thing Thatcher gave unions), but like a general election, such low turnouts for elections means that a party may win power, but does not mean their mandate reflects the majority of the public, and so it is with union strike ballots - the hardcore vote, the scared don't bother and you get a strike mandate delivered overnight as a result. This is why people are going back into work at BA, staff were not represented properly via the ballot system.

custardy

JasonLVC wrote: »

...and is there a particular problem with 'union busting'?

The BA executives answer to the shareholders/owners and provided they operate within all the existing EU laws on employment, H&S, discrimination acts, etc then the business should be free to go about its business.

Unite see it differently and seem to want to run a major corporation themselves but without the responsibility of shareholders, business plans and banking agreements. Unite want to run the business from the outside, free of all the stresses that running a business brings.

I think staff wanting to protect their jobs by going into work and standing up to bullying and threat tactics of unions is not scabbing, but common sense prevailing and bravo to them for standing up to the bullies who threten their very existence.

and what about the staff who lose their jobs via job losses?

Sucker_for_sweeties

ukcarper wrote: »

Wasn’t that why the Tories introduced right to buy and encourage home ownership so much.

Thought that was so they could buy up chunks of real estate cheap, and make a fortune....can't remember the (female) MP's name....seem to think she wriggled out of all the dung at the end of it though.:cool:

JasonLVC

custardy wrote: »

and what about the staff who lose their jobs via job losses?

I agree, they have a right to vote and strike - but therein lies the problem.

Jobs come and go in business to reflect the times. We have to accept that. Car plants hire more staff for a new car launch and then when sales tail off, those staff are made redundant. RM hire more staff around Christmas and turf them out in January.

So BA have more competition and less customers = cost cutting. Those that are going will resist ('tis human nature) and hence the strike but the outcome will still lead to job losses, maybe just less than first planned.

But we still have workers losing jobs and so the union should be ensuring the job loss process is fair (ie, not sacking the trouble makers or the weakest ones) rather than trying to protect every single job - it is just unreasonable and unfeasible to achieve no job loss and cut costs.

custardy

JasonLVC wrote: »

I agree, they have a right to vote and strike - but therein lies the problem.

Jobs come and go in business to reflect the times. We have to accept that. Car plants hire more staff for a new car launch and then when sales tail off, those staff are made redundant. RM hire more staff around Christmas and turf them out in January.

So BA have more competition and less customers = cost cutting. Those that are going will resist ('tis human nature) and hence the strike but the outcome will still lead to job losses, maybe just less than first planned.

But we still have workers losing jobs and so the union should be ensuring the job loss process is fair (ie, not sacking the trouble makers or the weakest ones) rather than trying to protect every single job - it is just unreasonable and unfeasible to achieve no job loss and cut costs.

but who is to say that isnt happening or moves have been made to that?
this is my point about these strikes/storys
we rarely get the full unbiased story

vivatifosi

This is a horrible situation. The key to me is the T&C of the Gatwick workers. Much is said about BA workers salaries vs Ryanair, Easyjet, Virgin etc. What should really be looked at is the different T&Cs between the different fleet cabin crew. If the unions had been really smart, they wouldn't have allowed the difference to grow to what it has. Looking at the situation dispassionately, as a company, wouldn't you want to get the cost base equalised between the two operations?

Realistically, if there was a massive difference in the standards between the two, you'd get passengers saying "I'm not flying BA out of Gatwick, the standards just aren't anywhere near as good as those out of Heathrow." In reality they don't. So BA management know that they can drive a wedge between the two. The real interesting question will be what level of support there is for the strike at Gatwick.

In terms of the people Sir Humphrey calls "scabs" (a horrible word), look at this from their point of view. They are putting themselves through a ton of stress of doing what they are doing because they honestly believe that they are doing what they can to save their jobs and those of their colleagues. While some of them are managers within the company, there are many that are just ordinary BA workers.

Senior Heathrow crew are in a horrid situation. If they lose their T&Cs where will they go? It won't be easy to get another job on the same T&Cs because other airlines often pay less, so what next? Many have high mortgages, in some cases whole families work for the airline, so they face a very real risk of losing their houses. This is a very high stakes affair and it is playing with people's lives.

The management at BA are unpopular. It would help tremendously if they said "and we know we made mistakes", acknowledging that it is their fault that they got caught up in a cartel scandal that was entirely of their making - and wasting money, not for the first time that could have been either reinvested in the company or used to shut pensions shortfalls - but they don't. Unpopular management at BA is not a new thing either, Bob Ayling was equally vilified.

There are many honest, hardworking and long-term employees at BA who are working their butts off at the moment, including cabin crew. While there are die-hards who are happy to see the airline go to the wall they do not represent anything like the majority. They are being told by their management that this is a battle for the survival of the company. People who work there are totally stressed out. It is truly sad. The only answer to the intractable problems is arbitration. I'd dearly like to see the government step in because I think it is needed. But I don't suppose it will happen because of the implied links between Unite and Labour funding. It's time for GB to raise above that and call both sides in.

Sir_Humphrey

vivatifosi wrote: »

In terms of the people Sir Humphrey calls "scabs" (a horrible word), look at this from their point of view. They are putting themselves through a ton of stress of doing what they are doing because they honestly believe that they are doing what they can to save their jobs and those of their colleagues. While some of them are managers within the company, there are many that are just ordinary BA workers.

By those I meant hired strike breakers rather than normal staff who turn up to work. That is what is meant by a scab, and IMO it is pretty low-down behaviour.

lostinrates

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

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.

I'm still skimmming threads (I know, I'm being really rude, but after the hours I've put in over the years I'm sure you'll all forgive me) and this just LEAPT out at me. Because I sort of agree. The thing is, in this cases the ''employers'' are also the consumers. We need enough left over after our tax paying to spend too.

Some one once said on this forum that around 50% of the employment/wealth generation or some such thing, was n Public sector, which leaves 50% ish private sector. Plus all the unemployed...housewives, children, students, sick, etc etc...living off the first of the cycle income of fewer then 50% or something. I don't know quite what I mean by that, but it makes sense in my head (through the cycle public sector PAYE enters, but it seems this is a weird distribution ....I don't know why....I nee to study economics.:o:))

Sir_Humphrey

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm still skimmming threads (I know, I'm being really rude, but after the hours I've put in over the years I'm sure you'll all forgive me) and this just LEAPT out at me. Because I sort of agree. The thing is, in this cases the ''employers'' are also the consumers. We need enough left over after our tax paying to spend too.

It is difficult to argue that the well-off are heavily taxed. Income tax is far lower than in the days of Thatcher, particularly the top rate.