'Who do you support in the BA strike?' poll discussion

mjh421

xyzzy wrote: »

Having read arguments for and against I am firmly of the opinion that this is a strike that Unite have engineered, and must be broken. There is no place in our society for this kind of union action. Surely the sensible crew MUST realise that the glory days are over. Look at what you get compared to others in the industry - this cannot continue. The next logincal step will be to fire those who are unwilling to change. I am certain there are thousands of Ryanair, Easyjet and other cabin crew who would LOVE to have these jobs. Personnaly, I find no difference in the quality of cabin crew from those airlines compared to BA. Airlines are not luxury businesses now, they are just in the people-moving business, and cost savings must happen to survive. A national airline is not some kind of protected business anymore. Neither should its employees expect protection from these pressures. Accept changes or leave. Get back to work and stop causing this widespread disruption to thousands of people. We can all choose other airlines you know.....

Where do you think that this will lead? At what cost to the economy if we all accepted your view? How much profit do you think is reasonable for a business to survive? You only have to look at Tescos to see how cheap is not always for the better. I personally don't like flying Ryanair, I booked a flight to Frankfurt with them thinking that the airport was just on the outskirts, in fact Frankfurt Hahn is an hour and a half drive from Frankfurt, which meant I would miss my train connections, so I tried to cancel two weeks before flying, only they have a policy that states you can't get refunds for not knowing where the airport is. Then why call it Frankfurt Hahn when it is no where near Frankfurt? I believe these are the tactics of cowboy outfits and do not represent a sound basis for a better future for airline travel. I also flew to Dublin via Ryanair previously and we were all packed in like sardines, I certainly would not like to go very far like that.

The main question you have to ask yourself is who do you trust in this argument, is it the chairman of BA or the employees? What I can predict is that anyone believing Willie Walsh will witness the total decline in BA not a rebirth, and the way forward will be down not up. The employees have no where else to go other than to stand against this tyrant, who personifies everything that is wrong in this country today.

I have worked as a parts manager and dealt with businesses up and down the country and abroad, where it has been my experience that lies and deceit are the bread and butter principles that is business, Which is why this country is finding it difficult to get out of recession. People like Willie Walsh are the people who are ruining what is left of our Industry, and if ordinary workers do not recognise what is happening then the future is very bleak.

PhiltheBear

mjh421 wrote: »

The main question you have to ask yourself is who do you trust in this argument, is it the chairman of BA or the employees? What I can predict is that anyone believing Willie Walsh will witness the total decline in BA not a rebirth, and the way forward will be down not up. The employees have no where else to go other than to stand against this tyrant, who personifies everything that is wrong in this country today.

The question should be - do you trust Walsh or Unite? Let's be 100% clear - BA put an offer on the table which Unite now want back but at the time they thought they could muscle their way to a better deal. The bluff has been called. Also, this is ONLY about Heathrow staff - all the others seem quite happy. Why is that?

The people at the top of Unite - just like those at the top of RMT - think they can hold companies to ransom. They are rapidly finding out that it's not true. There's very little public sympathy for these strikers, not because of passenger disruption but because the rest of us have had to undergo job cuts, loss of earnings, etc. in order to keep the companies we work for in business. Idiots at the top of trades unions just don't understand that - or, if they do, they are purely politically motivated. And, what they really don't understand is that their political party is going to get a good thrashing because of their actions. Just how stupid can they be?

You can guarantee that any deal that's reached now will be far worse than that offered earlier - because Unite is costing BA millions for every strike day and losing them future passengers. Stupid? Yes, they certainly are. That they are left wing is irrelevant.

mjh421

PhiltheBear wrote: »

The question should be - do you trust Walsh or Unite? Let's be 100% clear - BA put an offer on the table which Unite now want back but at the time they thought they could muscle their way to a better deal. The bluff has been called. Also, this is ONLY about Heathrow staff - all the others seem quite happy. Why is that?

The people at the top of Unite - just like those at the top of RMT - think they can hold companies to ransom. They are rapidly finding out that it's not true. There's very little public sympathy for these strikers, not because of passenger disruption but because the rest of us have had to undergo job cuts, loss of earnings, etc. in order to keep the companies we work for in business. Idiots at the top of trades unions just don't understand that - or, if they do, they are purely politically motivated. And, what they really don't understand is that their political party is going to get a good thrashing because of their actions. Just how stupid can they be?

You can guarantee that any deal that's reached now will be far worse than that offered earlier - because Unite is costing BA millions for every strike day and losing them future passengers. Stupid? Yes, they certainly are. That they are left wing is irrelevant.

I have worked in multinational companies who have said time and again that
the workforce should understand the needs of the business and accept the kinds of deal BA are pursuing, ultimately they have gone out of business and one more is threatening without the help of government they will close their company here locally. All were massively profitable but carried through company policies which were self destructive. Look around you and in your area you will no doubt see the devastation caused by these same people that you support, I could take you along Bristol road in Gloucester and show you how factories have been turned into shops, Industries which supplied the world now gone.

How many people must we lose before the penny drops, since business has had the absolute right to manage (maggie thatchers words not mine) we have seen never ending decline and if this is allowed to carry on there is no future for any of us, the choice is yours.

You continually blame the leadership of the union which you think are a soft target to score points off, but you forget that the members voted in favour on a massive scale and quite unheard of in this day and age,are you saying they don't know what the issue is but you do?

I do not work for BA but what I do know is that we will all pay the price if BA win.

Jomo

Roger_Moore_007 wrote: »

I know you will disagree with whatever I say for the sake of it, but did you not read where I said this could have been avoided if they had just spent more time negotiating? I don't expect BA to maintain anything, they should be offering full refunds if they're not able to provide staff to look after their passengers.

What are your thoughts on Willie Walsh?

That's not really good enough as many save up for years for that special holiday of a lifetime....

HBFS

I work at Heathrow and the people I feel most sorry for are the BA engineers and such.

They're getting all the flack from people regarding the strike, despite not being involved.

Personally, I'm not a fan of strike action and think UNITE have dropped the ball on this and in my company's pay dispute. A 10% pay rise? I know about negotiation, but that's just a silly place to start from.

relaxtwotribes

Having just booked my annual week in Barbados with BA, rather than my usual carrier, am I now supporting the union, or the bosses, or the airline?

mjh421

Jomo wrote: »

That's not really good enough as many save up for years for that special holiday of a lifetime....

Why don't you answer the question? Do you really care with response as weak as that?

PhiltheBear

mjh421 wrote: »

I have worked in multinational companies who have said time and again that
the workforce should understand the needs of the business and accept the kinds of deal BA are pursuing, ultimately they have gone out of business and one more is threatening without the help of government they will close their company here locally. All were massively profitable but carried through company policies which were self destructive. Look around you and in your area you will no doubt see the devastation caused by these same people that you support, I could take you along Bristol road in Gloucester and show you how factories have been turned into shops, Industries which supplied the world now gone.

How many people must we lose before the penny drops, since business has had the absolute right to manage (maggie thatchers words not mine) we have seen never ending decline and if this is allowed to carry on there is no future for any of us, the choice is yours.

You continually blame the leadership of the union which you think are a soft target to score points off, but you forget that the members voted in favour on a massive scale and quite unheard of in this day and age,are you saying they don't know what the issue is but you do?

I do not work for BA but what I do know is that we will all pay the price if BA win.

Remember British Leyland? The ridiculous union demands/strikes eventually put it out of business. Not management - unions.

The current 'decline' of business can be laid squarely at the door of the current Government, who have increased taxes/legislation on business to the extent that they have to make a higher profit level just to keep up. And the Government despite owning some banks haven't forced them to loan to business. In fact, business lending is choked - which is why the level of companies being wound up has soared.

You will also have noticed that there have been very few strikes in that period - perhaps because workers have seen a huge increase in pay. But those that there have been are always the same old dinosaur unions - Trains and Tubes spring to mind. (Crow being another in the same mould as Whelan).

A lot of businesses have gone to the wall because they can't compete in a global market. But, far from trying to help the big companies that we do have by ensuring that they can carry on we have the likes of Unite trying to bring them down. And, if you read the news, there are plenty more such actions planned (funnily enough, not until after the election but perhaps that's because Unite are funding so many potential Labour MPs - who just happen to be Unite members :eek:).

The people who work for BA have, by and large, accepted this and slimmed down. But one glaring beacon of self-interest hasn't. Why have ALL the other places BA works from not joined in? The only reason I can see is that Unite have an agenda which isn't about helping BA - or their members.

It's interesting that Unite are having to plunder their reserves and make calls on their other members to fund strike pay. I'm pretty sure that all the other Unite members will soon get fed up of doing that - after all, Unite aren't fighting for them to get pay rises and guaranteed jobs.

At the end of the day it will all get settled. And, if BA doesn't have the money to pay staff it will simply sack them. There are an awful lot of potential waitresses out there just waiting for the opportunity to work. Look at Wal-Mart in the US - they don't have unions but they do have people queuing up to work for them despite (according to the unions there) paying low wages, treating their staff badly, etc. Why? Because people know that, at the end of the day, they'd rather have a job than starve. It's a lesson Unite need to learn before they run out of money to promote their various staff members to jobs as MPs.

Jomo

mjh421 wrote: »

Why don't you answer the question? Do you really care with response as weak as that?

In your opinion.

Maybe you should say that to those who have lost their holiday (roll eyes).

mjh421

PhiltheBear wrote: »

Remember British Leyland? The ridiculous union demands/strikes eventually put it out of business. Not management - unions.

The current 'decline' of business can be laid squarely at the door of the current Government, who have increased taxes/legislation on business to the extent that they have to make a higher profit level just to keep up. And the Government despite owning some banks haven't forced them to loan to business. In fact, business lending is choked - which is why the level of companies being wound up has soared.

You will also have noticed that there have been very few strikes in that period - perhaps because workers have seen a huge increase in pay. But those that there have been are always the same old dinosaur unions - Trains and Tubes spring to mind. (Crow being another in the same mould as Whelan).

A lot of businesses have gone to the wall because they can't compete in a global market. But, far from trying to help the big companies that we do have by ensuring that they can carry on we have the likes of Unite trying to bring them down. And, if you read the news, there are plenty more such actions planned (funnily enough, not until after the election but perhaps that's because Unite are funding so many potential Labour MPs - who just happen to be Unite members :eek:).

The people who work for BA have, by and large, accepted this and slimmed down. But one glaring beacon of self-interest hasn't. Why have ALL the other places BA works from not joined in? The only reason I can see is that Unite have an agenda which isn't about helping BA - or their members.

It's interesting that Unite are having to plunder their reserves and make calls on their other members to fund strike pay. I'm pretty sure that all the other Unite members will soon get fed up of doing that - after all, Unite aren't fighting for them to get pay rises and guaranteed jobs.

At the end of the day it will all get settled. And, if BA doesn't have the money to pay staff it will simply sack them. There are an awful lot of potential waitresses out there just waiting for the opportunity to work. Look at Wal-Mart in the US - they don't have unions but they do have people queuing up to work for them despite (according to the unions there) paying low wages, treating their staff badly, etc. Why? Because people know that, at the end of the day, they'd rather have a job than starve. It's a lesson Unite need to learn before they run out of money to promote their various staff members to jobs as MPs.

The final paragraph sums up where we are heading, the rest of it is classic mail reader quotes, blame Government, blame Unions, what does seem to allude you is the fact that we have had compliant unions now for something like 20 odd years during which a Tory Government regarded as the most disastrous in modern history destroyed 25% of british Industry in their first two years, then argued if it was not hurting it is not working. All that from a Government that came into power to reduce unemployment, ie Labour isn't Working posters. Could I also remind you that the same Tory Government promised to put money into peoples pockets, and yes reduced Income Tax by 3% and then put up V.A.T from 8% to 15% and later again to 17% saying well you only pay for it when you spend. They also sold off all the state assets described by none other than Harold Macmillan a previous Tory Prime minister as "The State Silver". When selling off the National Oil Corporation that Tony Benn set up, Maggie Thatcher argued that the oil was better managed in private hands unlike the Norwegians who were spending their Oil profits on their Health System. "Silly people" What a silly thing to do.
The Torys have squandered Britains future and it does not register in their psyche that if we continue in like fashion the only way is down.

Cameron has shown that he will carry on in the same old tradition, when single parent families were put in the spotlight not long ago, he was quick to challenge their rights to state support and suggested they should endeavour to find work, whilst at the same time he was claiming £22000 allowances for his Mortgage, notwithstanding the fact that he is married to someone of enormous wealth.

As I have outlined in the past, I have worked for Multi National Companies
who behave in the clone like manner of doing what ever each other does.
That is to say if one institutes the 5 s's so say to improve productivity then they all jump on the bandwagon and congratulate each other without being able to evaluate exactly what if any benefit has been derived. The workforce on the other hand see no real benefit but can see the cost involved ie consultant fees etc.,

I started working for Walls Ice cream in 1986 with a workforce 3000 plus, with all the productivity measures imposed from above due to a compliant workforce of the manner you have outlined as necessary, we were told for example that if we did not accept a 12 hour pattern of shift working that the company would disinvest, we knew that the ice-cream business sells its products when the sun comes out, not rocket science to normal people but never the less too great a gulf for macho management to cope with.
They wanted more flexibility with this system and when they got their way we had shifts coming in when there was low demand and shifts out on leave when there was high demand. The sum total was over the years in order to meet the projected profit levels workers were made redundant, I had to take early retirement in 2002 where a workforce of 350 people were left.

I could go on to explain all the nuances of all the various systems which were introduced all of which came to nothing, as we suffered from their inefficiency rather than success, the cost of Macho Management was payed for by the workforce, for those of us that take note of what is happening around us rather than what we want to believe, will no doubt recognise the pattern of events which have lead to the demise of industries in their area.

You of course refer to British Leyland and the disputes during that period, what you fail to understand is that there are two sides to every argument, and if the unions were as guilty as you would have us to believe what ever happened to Managements ability to build a consensus with its workforce.
What I remember from those days was the plea from the workforce to invest on the scale that other countries were, pleas which were totally ignored. In the recent past for example Toyota spent £1billion developing a new engine, How much do you think British Leyland would have proportionally invested? British companies prime concern is the maximisation of profit and they don't care how they make it, when things get tough their answer is the workforce pays, or just move on to a different area such as the Far East or anywhere there is cheap labour.