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

relaxtwotribes

mjh421 wrote: »

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

Yes quite right too; that 25% should have been wound up many years beforehand. It comprised industries such as rail, coal mining, steel, etc that were costing the taxpayer many hundreds of millions a year in subsidy. A figure that would have risen to many billions by now if trades unions had the same powers today.

The privatisation of many state controlled industries has proved to be a masterstroke that was been continued by Blair. If you wish to make a fair comparison, just look back at the completely disastrous government of James Callaghan.

mjh421 wrote: »

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.

You are answering your own questions here. Labour operates in a market just like raw materials and capital do. Don't make the mistake that it is only British companies that seek to maximise profit.

PhiltheBear

mjh421 wrote: »

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.

I notice that you totally disregard the question of why all the rest of BA are happy - but the Unite led cabin crew at Heathrow should be somehow special. That obviously is a question you want to avoid.

But let's deal with some of your assumptions. Firstly, you are right in that British management, traditionally, have been fairly incompetent. That's largely because we've always had an environment of promoting from the workforce to higher positions. So, just what would a stewardess know about running an airline? Not a lot. What would someone who had previously run other large companies? The answer is obvious.

Let's also consider your claims about investment. As I'm sure you are aware when you invest money you expect to reap profit from doing so. Back in the Union glory days of the late 60s/early 70s that was pretty near impossible. Why? Well, largely because the unions had a stranglehold over British business. It wasn't business that set pay rates - it was Unions.

I used to work for a large printing company. Every year we'd have a set of meetings, which lasted a week or so, at the union behest to determine wages for the forthcoming year. It was a total farce. Because, no matter what we'd agree, at the end of that week the union headquarters would send out their wage list. And we'd have to agree to that. It didn't matter whether or not we could afford it / make profit / have to lay off other staff. If we didn't agree the union would strike in our factory AND get other unions to refuse to allow us to carry on business e.g. by stopping transport of goods in/out, threatening strikes at our suppliers/customers, etc. That was true of print unions, engineering unions (national strike in about 1973/4), coal unions, transport unions, etc..

Not only that but we actually had no choice about who to pay how much - because the print unions used to work a 'chapel' system where all wages were given to the 'Father of the Chapel' and he'd pay people. Oh, and he'd also decide who could or couldn't work there. Amazingly most of the staff were his friends / family.

Was that a good way to run a business? Was it sensible that, no matter what printing you undertook, whether newpapers on massive continuous paper machines or greetings cards on something little more than a desktop machine you'd be paid the same? Wherever in the country you lived? Irrespective of how well your company was doing?

It was a great day when Thatcher crushed the print unions. Since that time there's been a massive upsurge in British printing - with firms able to operate profitably, rather than being choked to death. And they've been able to get investment and make investment in the full knowledge that it'll help them grow as opposed to the union dominated years where any investment would simply have been eaten up. That, as a matter of fact, is why BL didn't invest. Every time they tried the unions would immediately want more money for themselves rather than allowing investment in infrastructure that would have, in time, ensured better returns for everyone. But unions are always about grabbing now and not thinking long term.

The countries that invested in their businesses - like Japan and the US - don't have anything like the union activity that we do. And they have radically different cultures to each other - and to us. In the US people work for reward - they also 'live the dream' and try and better themselves. If your factory needs to up output temporarily then the workforce will be there doing their bit, in the hope that their company will prosper and that will filter down to them. In the US model it usually does. Look at the likes of Microsoft/Google and others. People start off those businesses by paying low wages - but the rewards come later.

The Japanese model is one where the business looks after you and your family virtually from cradle to grave. In return you give them your work.

In the UK we've always had an antagonistic approach. It's always them vs us - irrespective of which side you support. It's seriously time that this stopped. But it will never stop until both sides can see that the only way forward is to work together. And it'll never succeed while the 'militants' hold sway at the top of unions - because they aren't fighting for their members' interests - they're fighting their own ideological battles.

Please explain why it is that Unite are fighting for a section of staff - when all the others have accepted. Is there any other reason than sheer bloody-mindedness?

mjh421

PhiltheBear wrote: »

I notice that you totally disregard the question of why all the rest of BA are happy - but the Unite led cabin crew at Heathrow should be somehow special. That obviously is a question you want to avoid.

But let's deal with some of your assumptions. Firstly, you are right in that British management, traditionally, have been fairly incompetent. That's largely because we've always had an environment of promoting from the workforce to higher positions. So, just what would a stewardess know about running an airline? Not a lot. What would someone who had previously run other large companies? The answer is obvious.

Let's also consider your claims about investment. As I'm sure you are aware when you invest money you expect to reap profit from doing so. Back in the Union glory days of the late 60s/early 70s that was pretty near impossible. Why? Well, largely because the unions had a stranglehold over British business. It wasn't business that set pay rates - it was Unions.

I used to work for a large printing company. Every year we'd have a set of meetings, which lasted a week or so, at the union behest to determine wages for the forthcoming year. It was a total farce. Because, no matter what we'd agree, at the end of that week the union headquarters would send out their wage list. And we'd have to agree to that. It didn't matter whether or not we could afford it / make profit / have to lay off other staff. If we didn't agree the union would strike in our factory AND get other unions to refuse to allow us to carry on business e.g. by stopping transport of goods in/out, threatening strikes at our suppliers/customers, etc. That was true of print unions, engineering unions (national strike in about 1973/4), coal unions, transport unions, etc..

Not only that but we actually had no choice about who to pay how much - because the print unions used to work a 'chapel' system where all wages were given to the 'Father of the Chapel' and he'd pay people. Oh, and he'd also decide who could or couldn't work there. Amazingly most of the staff were his friends / family.

Was that a good way to run a business? Was it sensible that, no matter what printing you undertook, whether newpapers on massive continuous paper machines or greetings cards on something little more than a desktop machine you'd be paid the same? Wherever in the country you lived? Irrespective of how well your company was doing?

It was a great day when Thatcher crushed the print unions. Since that time there's been a massive upsurge in British printing - with firms able to operate profitably, rather than being choked to death. And they've been able to get investment and make investment in the full knowledge that it'll help them grow as opposed to the union dominated years where any investment would simply have been eaten up. That, as a matter of fact, is why BL didn't invest. Every time they tried the unions would immediately want more money for themselves rather than allowing investment in infrastructure that would have, in time, ensured better returns for everyone. But unions are always about grabbing now and not thinking long term.

The countries that invested in their businesses - like Japan and the US - don't have anything like the union activity that we do. And they have radically different cultures to each other - and to us. In the US people work for reward - they also 'live the dream' and try and better themselves. If your factory needs to up output temporarily then the workforce will be there doing their bit, in the hope that their company will prosper and that will filter down to them. In the US model it usually does. Look at the likes of Microsoft/Google and others. People start off those businesses by paying low wages - but the rewards come later.

The Japanese model is one where the business looks after you and your family virtually from cradle to grave. In return you give them your work.

In the UK we've always had an antagonistic approach. It's always them vs us - irrespective of which side you support. It's seriously time that this stopped. But it will never stop until both sides can see that the only way forward is to work together. And it'll never succeed while the 'militants' hold sway at the top of unions - because they aren't fighting for their members' interests - they're fighting their own ideological battles.

Please explain why it is that Unite are fighting for a section of staff - when all the others have accepted. Is there any other reason than sheer bloody-mindedness?

Firstly I don't know how many BA workers are happy with their present working conditions and I would suggest you do not either, further more from my experience of Macho Management style we went through 3 separate ballots of the workforce so that 12 hour shifts could be introduced and it was finally settled because the management threatened to disinvest. Those that voted for said they put on the ballot paper yes but under duress, not a happy workforce in my eyes, notwithstanding the fact that the management reverted back to the previous shift system a matter of years later when all that we said would happen did and it became unworkable, sadly the cost was also borne by us not the management.

When referring to America and Japan, yes they have different styles of management but both are deeply in the mire, Japan are stagnating and the US have 10% unemployment which they are having problems to overcome, when looking at the World Banking crisis that they created people like myself have no difficulty understanding why.

From your perspective the continual thread of your argument is that of Thatcherite "the management have the right to do as they please and everybody should be happy with the crumbs that fall off the table".
The economic devastation that this symbolises is the predicament that the US are facing which is why they can't get out of recession.

Put simply when peoples living standards fall the economy declines and falls into what is commonly known as spiraling deflation. With this there are winners and losers, otherwise known as the haves and the have nots. The Rich get richer and the poor get poorer. If we all follow your logic the only way is down hence the other favourite thatcherite expression "if it isn't hurting it isn't working", or "there is no alternative". We will return back to the bad old days of the 20s and 30s if someone does not make a stand now.
At least we had some Industry to build from then if it declines here any further there will not be anything left, When you look at how successful the privatised utilities are, that are now in foreign ownership, it would be a massive leap in faith to put any trust in their leadership.

The real question for you is why was there such massive support for the present action, do you know more about their airline industry than they do?

I do not presume to be as well informed about all the arguments relating this as they are, but do understand the depth of feeling there must be to produce such a ballot.

mjh421

relaxtwotribes wrote: »

Yes quite right too; that 25% should have been wound up many years beforehand. It comprised industries such as rail, coal mining, steel, etc that were costing the taxpayer many hundreds of millions a year in subsidy. A figure that would have risen to many billions by now if trades unions had the same powers today.

The privatisation of many state controlled industries has proved to be a masterstroke that was been continued by Blair. If you wish to make a fair comparison, just look back at the completely disastrous government of James Callaghan.



You are answering your own questions here. Labour operates in a market just like raw materials and capital do. Don't make the mistake that it is only British companies that seek to maximise profit.

I notice you failed to reply to my reference regarding the master stroke of selling off our National oil company, guess what we could be doing with all that oil revenue now, instead of just paying it to the oil companies.
The real problem to all airlines is the maximisation of profits by the oil companies who are hitting all of us without any regard as to the economic impact it is having.

The other master stroke British Rail, Just look at the present chaos, pricing has become a lottery, we are subsidising the various networks who cannot continue without a subsidy, and now we are even buying their trains for them just so that they can pay their shareholders and make a profit. Thats real progress. I could go on!!!!!

PhiltheBear

mjh421 wrote: »

The real question for you is why was there such massive support for the present action, do you know more about their airline industry than they do?

I do not presume to be as well informed about all the arguments relating this as they are, but do understand the depth of feeling there must be to produce such a ballot.

Whatever their feelings, the fact remains that their colleagues, doing the same job - at every other BA base - have accepted and implemented the management plans.

So, let's try again - what makes the flying waitresses at Heathrow so different? It must be something. Could it simply be that Unite has, by rhetoric or other means, simply bamboozled them? Consider the possibility. The fact that Whelan is a well known 'militant'/'activist' might give you a clue.

I'm sure that every individual there is unhappy at the thought of job losses / wage cuts (although I believe that the BA offer included a wage rise). Tough. Get with the real world. The company can't afford it. There are hundreds/thousands of other companies who've had to make similar decisions in this recession - and lots of people lost jobs. It's a fact of overall economic life. The BA waitresses need to face up to it.

mjh421

PhiltheBear wrote: »

Whatever their feelings, the fact remains that their colleagues, doing the same job - at every other BA base - have accepted and implemented the management plans.

So, let's try again - what makes the flying waitresses at Heathrow so different? It must be something. Could it simply be that Unite has, by rhetoric or other means, simply bamboozled them? Consider the possibility. The fact that Whelan is a well known 'militant'/'activist' might give you a clue.

I'm sure that every individual there is unhappy at the thought of job losses / wage cuts (although I believe that the BA offer included a wage rise). Tough. Get with the real world. The company can't afford it. There are hundreds/thousands of other companies who've had to make similar decisions in this recession - and lots of people lost jobs. It's a fact of overall economic life. The BA waitresses need to face up to it.

It looks like you know what's good for all of us so we had better put a gun to our heads and pull the trigger, rather than listen to the people who really know what it's all about. I have personally found cabin staff to be extremely courteous whatever airline I have used, I do not think calling them names enhances your argument any further than the gutter.

PhiltheBear

mjh421 wrote: »

It looks like you know what's good for all of us so we had better put a gun to our heads and pull the trigger, rather than listen to the people who really know what it's all about. I have personally found cabin staff to be extremely courteous whatever airline I have used, I do not think calling them names enhances your argument any further than the gutter.

And I think you can't give me a rational answer to the question - which is why what you've written is merely irrelevant.

It's a simple question - why are the trolley dollies at Heathrow more deserving than their colleagues at Gatwick, Manchester, ....? You've got all the answers (or you've been listening to "the people who really know what it's all about" :rotfl:). So you must be able to tell us poor ignorant people who don't know. I'm waiting....

mjh421

PhiltheBear wrote: »

And I think you can't give me a rational answer to the question - which is why what you've written is merely irrelevant.

It's a simple question - why are the trolley dollies at Heathrow more deserving than their colleagues at Gatwick, Manchester, ....? You've got all the answers (or you've been listening to "the people who really know what it's all about" :rotfl:). So you must be able to tell us poor ignorant people who don't know. I'm waiting....

It seems to me that that the real issues do not matter to you and are merely pursuing a point scoring exercise which when that fails you revert to name calling. Not unknown in right wing circles.

PhiltheBear

mjh421 wrote: »

It seems to me that that the real issues do not matter to you and are merely pursuing a point scoring exercise which when that fails you revert to name calling. Not unknown in right wing circles.

I'll take that as "I have no idea". Which pretty much goes along with everything else you've said.

(BTW - name calling? Cabin crew have been known as 'trolley dollies' for years. Because it aptly and succinctly describes what they do. Rather like 'refuse disposal operatives' being called 'dustmen').

ipod_killed_the_musicshop

I support anyone's right to strike, having worked at Crapita.