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

mjh421

The facts are that BA have decided to solve their financial problems in the usual manner of cutting jobs, this time it happens to be cabin staff, next time it might be maintenance staff, after that it might be baggage staff, when will people ever learn that when companies fail to meet their projected profit levels they always cut jobs, ie you have to pay the price for their incompetence. I would recommend that the share holders sack the board of directors and the chairman, think how much money that would save BA, as at the rate of jobs losses in industry today we wont have any jobs for anybody before long. Also what the none thinking public forget is reducing the workforce in a service industry means worse service not better. If any body thinks that the likes of these company chairman know anything about their industry then why is there no real initiatives other than to sacrifice the work force in the name of profit? The other small point is how come this chairman has a billion pounds at his disposal to win this strike, whilst at the same time cutting staff, sounds like union bashing to me, or bully boy bosses.
The problem most people cannot understand is that airlines are suffering from what is commonly called market Forces, The cost of fuel is rising because the petrol companies are pushing prices up until eventually there will be a crash, BA are obviously suffering from this situation but have no answer to it because they also subscribe to the same mantra.

MrShed

mjh421 wrote: »

The facts are that BA have decided to solve their financial problems in the usual manner of cutting jobs, this time it happens to be cabin staff, next time it might be maintenance staff, after that it might be baggage staff, when will people ever learn that when companies fail to meet their projected profit levels they always cut jobs, ie you have to pay the price for their incompetence.

Paying price for incompetence - perhaps. But what exactly would you have them to, continue to p**s away money with mismanagement?

I would recommend that the share holders sack the board of directors and the chairman, think how much money that would save BA,

Thats a good idea - if I had a brain tumour, would you cure me by chopping off my head?

as at the rate of jobs losses in industry today we wont have any jobs for anybody before long.

A tad melodramatic.

Also what the none thinking public forget is reducing the workforce in a service industry means worse service not better.

That is simply not the case, and is a sweeping statement.

It can be very much the case, but most certainly is not a given.

Moreover - so what? Thats the companies decision, not the employees.

If any body thinks that the likes of these company chairman know anything about their industry then why is there no real initiatives other than to sacrifice the work force in the name of profit? The other small point is how come this chairman has a billion pounds at his disposal to win this strike, whilst at the same time cutting staff, sounds like union bashing to me, or bully boy bosses.

Sounds to me like strikers cutting off their nose to spite their face.

You said it in one - funds have had to be diverted to essential costs due to the strike. Therefore, actually putting BA in a worse position by striking not better.

The problem most people cannot understand is that airlines are suffering from what is commonly called market Forces, The cost of fuel is rising because the petrol companies are pushing prices up until eventually there will be a crash, BA are obviously suffering from this situation but have no answer to it because they also subscribe to the same mantra.

I think most people do understand market forces - you are not the only "educated" one amongst us....

Yet again, your point contradicts your answer.

It stands to reason that market force changes will force job changes - whether it be cuts, or changes to terms.

mjh421

Wooly thinkers always forget that this is the real world, when you are being threatened with your livelihood being taken away from you in times like the present and you stand alone to face it, you need the assurance of trade unions to fight your cause. I well remember the financial crash of lloyds Insurance during the bad weather conditions hitting the USA, the names who over the years received huge payments for putting their names to underwriters, were then called to account and asked to pay up because lloyds could not meet the demand for claims and were very complacent about the risks involved until being asked to pay up. They then squealed like stuck pigs and called on the then Government to bail them out. They thought they were secure because of that funny word "confidence" in lloyds, this is reminiscent the sort of complacency shown by anti union commentators who think they are sitting comfortably and so long as it somebody else who is losing their job thats fine by them.

MrShed

mjh421 wrote: »

Wooly thinkers always forget that this is the real world,

I'm pleased I am a wooly thinker. I would actually say that I AM very much in the real world, as opposed to strikers believing we still live in the 70s.

when you are being threatened with your livelihood being taken away from you in times like the present and you stand alone to face it, you need the assurance of trade unions to fight your cause.

Why?

The problem with trade unions is that they fight stupid battles.

It is wrong, in the wider scheme, to assume that no-one should ever lose they job (or livelihood as you put it).

I well remember the financial crash of lloyds Insurance during the bad weather conditions hitting the USA, the names who over the years received huge payments for putting their names to underwriters, were then called to account and asked to pay up because lloyds could not meet the demand for claims and were very complacent about the risks involved until being asked to pay up. They then squealed like stuck pigs and called on the then Government to bail them out. They thought they were secure because of that funny word "confidence" in lloyds, this is reminiscent the sort of complacency shown by anti union commentators who think they are sitting comfortably and so long as it somebody else who is losing their job thats fine by them.

I invite you to read my post above, where I specifically state that I am in very real danger of losing my job.

Job losses are always bad for the people involved. But trade unions will fight to the death to prevent them, even if it is in the worst interests of the company, and therefore all of the rest of the employees of that company.

If I am a wooly thinker, you are a narrow minded one, with no eye on the bigger picture.

Sue01

Employees are in a difficult position. Nobody wants a pay cut. A pay freeze for two years is a long time. If inflation rises very high they will be far worse off. They didn't cause the recession & yet as with all working tax payers they are being made to pay for it.
BA seem to be bent on forcing this through as fast as possible with no intention of negotiating it because they know if they don't push it through very soon, the economic conditions may change & the reasons they have stated for doing this will no longer stand up.

Terms & comditions are sacrosanct. These terms & conditions were agreed & implemented by BA. Why should they be allowed to change their minds retrospectively.

I wouldn't be happy if my salary was reduced in real terms to bail out the mess we are in. Employees are already having our taxes increased, our pensions reduced and everything is going up in price. Why is it always the working population that is made to pay. Let's see BA managment & executives lead by example & sign up to have no bonus, no extra funds paid into their pensions, no pay increases for two years & no travel perks. Then perhaps they can sit down & negotiate on a level playing field.

laaljay

We were due to fly to Vancouver on Saturday. Yesterday BA announced its schedule for the weekend strike action dates. Both our flights were going ahead. This morning when I checked the website I discovered our flight to Vancouver was cancelled. As a family we are devastated! My children have both cried their eyes out. This was a holiday of a lifetime to celebrate my husband's 40th birthday and we had been looking forward to it for years. BA have transferred us onto a flight to Calgary which is hundreds of miles from where we need to be. We are having to pay £1000 for a hotel and connecting flights and also will lose a day of our holiday. Our insurance company say they can do nothing about it. We feel we have no option, pay £1000 or lose thousands more. I had no sympathy for the cabin crew over this strike but now have no sympathy for BA either if this is the way it treats its customers. We, like many thousands of others, will never fly with BA again. I'm afraid I think this will be the end for BA. So what will Unite have achieved - no jobs for their members and probably thousands of others!

MrShed

Sue01 wrote: »

Employees are in a difficult position. Nobody wants a pay cut. A pay freeze for two years is a long time. If inflation rises very high they will be far worse off. They didn't cause the recession & yet as with all working tax payers they are being made to pay for it.

But the problem is, who does pay?

You say "working tax payers" but thats basically EVERYONE. What you mean I guess is the lower end workers.

The comment implies that life is fair enough that the culprits of an issue always pay - it most certainly isnt.

By that token, why am I paying for the NHS to treat smokers/obese patients, or why am I paying for someone elses child support?

That is what happens in a taxed society.

BA seem to be bent on forcing this through as fast as possible with no intention of negotiating it because they know if they don't push it through very soon, the economic conditions may change & the reasons they have stated for doing this will no longer stand up.

I suspect that the lack of negotiation is not entirely true....

Bear in mind that BA have no obligation to negotiate quite frankly.

Terms & comditions are sacrosanct.

No they arent.

These terms & conditions were agreed & implemented by BA. Why should they be allowed to change their minds retrospectively.

Nothing is being done retrospectively - wrong term to use.

The reason that they should be able to change terms is because the world, the economy and the market are not stationary. Thus neither can terms and conditions be.

Bear in mind that changing T&Cs in contracts is a VERY common occurrance in employment - BA are one of thousands of companies that do it!

I wouldn't be happy if my salary was reduced in real terms to bail out the mess we are in. Employees are already having our taxes increased,

No they arent.

our pensions reduced and everything is going up in price. Why is it always the working population that is made to pay.

Because they pay the taxes that funds government - see my point above.

Let's see BA managment & executives lead by example & sign up to have no bonus, no extra funds paid into their pensions, no pay increases for two years & no travel perks.

THAT, I agree with.

Mydavidbowie

Employers and business have the power to hire and fire people, they can set wages and terms and conditions. People have to sell their labour to these companies, if they are treated unfairly they may be able to legally object, leave or strike.
Workers are part of the assets of the company, they should be treated well enough to ensure loyalty. People do not get jobs by luck - even in a recession, they have to have the right skills and work ethic- because this is a 2 way contract. Because greed at the top has caused a global recession , no one should be forced to 'feel lucky to have a job'. BA needs and wants to make massive profits because of the way it is managed and run. It wants to be a prestige airline but rather than cut down on share dividends or pillows , it wants to take this from the staff. Staff will be realistic and accept a share of pain - but at this stage striking is the only method of showing the strength of feeling. If workers scab or give in due to fear of loosing wages or tetms or benefits - this is not a positive outcome and will ruin the company long term. The management of a company who does not listen to its best asset - the staff , is old fashioned and destined to failure. I do not want to be flown by unhappy exploited staff .
If i can afford BAs prices then i wouldnt travel by a budget airline anyway, so put the prices up to ensure fair pay. If competition is seen as a threat to this company then maybe there is something wrong our current system.

jessicar

I worked for a small-ish private company which gave me a promotion and pay-rise as I was doing well, then took it away again some months later when they decided they couldn't afford it.

They also went back on a lot of promises regarding my working conditions and hours.

I didn't have the choice to strike (and wouldn't have anyway). I just resigned, spent a few months searching hard for a job and have now found a MUCH better job with a huge pay rise. My old company lost my skills (which were fairly unique there), my experience and one of it's most hard-working employees. Their loss, and what they deserve for treating their best staff badly.

I expected to be paid a fair rate for my skills - but not a higher rate than other people doing the same job as me with the same skills. Because my assessment of the job market for my skills was realistic, I was able to leave and get a better job.

BA staff seem to acknowledge they get paid more than the market rate for their jobs but feel they deserve it simply because it's BA?

It's an unrealistic view, and unsustainable in the current economic climate.

PhiltheBear

mrsrobinson wrote: »

We are trained to a high standard and have to resit exams and training annually whoever you work for.

I and many of my colleagues over the years have dealt with numerous onboard emegencies including fires, evacuations, numerous heart attacks, strokes and even child birth, as well as dealing over the years with the constant threat of terrorism.

So, that's the same training as you'd get for a First Aid at Work certificate? Wow. A waitress with a First Aid Certificate! With the ability to use a fire extinguisher! That's got to be one of the hardest jobs in the world. :rotfl: