BAA strike

lackingwedge · 21 December 2007 at 1:33PM

Chesterfield, your posts does not make much sense when you think of the points you raised (when you managed to filter out the insults).
If you really want, i can dubunk you points one by one, but i don't really want to embarrass you.

Also you and all the others who have been quick to criticise the strikers have conveniently not commented to the examples i provided of numerous companies that stopped their FS pensions for exsisting staff members a few years after ending it for new employees (despite assurances that they would not do this).

swanseajack61 · 21 December 2007 at 1:34PM

exel1966 wrote: »

EDIT : And If you don't like what I put - TUFF !!

What a stupid response, grow up you clown.

chesterfield · 21 December 2007 at 1:45PM

And exactly how is this affecting the current members pension rights?

This is the last resort taken by a Union which has all the intellect of the average housefly. Final salary pensions are dissappearing for various reasons, the main being that they are not financialy viable due to the length of time people live after retirement.

Its simple.

Though it would appear even this is not a simple enough concept for some of the missing links in the Unions to grasp.

If the Unions get their way and force BAA to keep this scheme open, then there will be massive cutbacks in other areas to pay for it. Though of course the unions will probably ballot to strike over any of those reductions too. Such is the nature of the beast.

The financial cost to the UK economy if these strikes go ahead will also be large. It certainly has the pottential to affect it considerably. An economic downturn could lead to less travel across the board, leading to less requirement for staff at airports. You can see where this is headed...

If the Unions continue with such backward thinking logic then it will lead to a lot more serious concerns for its members than the losing of the final salary for NEW members. It may lead to some members being made redundant alltogether. Good luck finding a final salary pension if that happens.

So no, it is not the actions of a workforce being bullied into a corner, it is the actions of a mindless group of planks than cannot see further than the end of their nose. Wanting to flex their "union muscle" just for the sake of it.

Strapped · 21 December 2007 at 1:48PM

chesterfield wrote: »

And exactly how is this affecting the current members pension rights?

This is the last resort taken by a Union which has all the intellect of the average housefly. Final salary pensions are dissappearing for various reasons, the main being that they are not financialy viable due to the length of time people live after retirement.

Its simple.

Though it would appear even this is not a simple enough concept for some of the missing links in the Unions to grasp.

If the Unions get their way and force BAA to keep this scheme open, then there will be massive cutbacks in other areas to pay for it. Though of course the unions will probably ballot to strike over any of those reductions too. Such is the nature of the beast.

The financial cost to the UK economy if these strikes go ahead will also be large. It certainly has the pottential to affect it considerably. An economic downturn could lead to less travel across the board, leading to less requirement for staff at airports. You can see where this is headed...

If the Unions continue with such backward thinking logic then it will lead to a lot more serious concerns for its members than the losing of the final salary for NEW members. It may lead to some members being made redundant alltogether. Good luck finding a final salary pension if that happens.

So no, it is not the actions of a workforce being bullied into a corner, it is the actions of a mindless group of planks than cannot see further than the end of their nose. Wanting to flex their "union muscle" just for the sake of it.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

Good to see so many members of BAA management on this thread :T

ckerrd · 21 December 2007 at 1:48PM

chesterfield wrote: »

And exactly how is this affecting the current members pension rights?

This is the last resort taken by a Union which has all the intellect of the average housefly. Final salary pensions are dissappearing for various reasons, the main being that they are not financialy viable due to the length of time people live after retirement.

Its simple.

Though it would appear even this is not a simple enough concept for some of the missing links in the Unions to grasp.

If the Unions get their way and force BAA to keep this scheme open, then there will be massive cutbacks in other areas to pay for it. Though of course the unions will probably ballot to strike over any of those reductions too. Such is the nature of the beast.

The financial cost to the UK economy if these strikes go ahead will also be large. It certainly has the pottential to affect it considerably. An economic downturn could lead to less travel across the board, leading to less requirement for staff at airports. You can see where this is headed...

If the Unions continue with such backward thinking logic then it will lead to a lot more serious concerns for its members than the losing of the final salary for NEW members. It may lead to some members being made redundant alltogether. Good luck finding a final salary pension if that happens.

So no, it is not the actions of a workforce being bullied into a corner, it is the actions of a mindless group of planks than cannot see further than the end of their nose. Wanting to flex their "union muscle" just for the sake of it.

Why do people resort to abuse when they disagree with things?

chesterfield · 21 December 2007 at 1:59PM

Well they clearly do not understand sound financial reasoning. The act of striking because of a dissagreement over pension funding is little more than an advanced version of throwing a tantrum as a child.

For the record I am not in any way connected to BAA, and any travel plans I have are not affected by these strikes either.

There are numerous examples of FS schemes being closed for new members, there are as pointed out by Lackingwedge numerous examples of FS schemes being closed for existing members.

Now if the scheme was being closed for existing members, I could see at least some reasoning for the action, although in my opinion it is still a ridiculous way of attempting to resolve a dispute.

peterbaker · 21 December 2007 at 2:02PM

Chesterfield appears to have much to learn.

Shall we explain?

You know how our government (everybody's in fact) goes on about how, with the ageing indiginous population, funding state pensions is becoming more and more difficult? And how they say that an influx of large numbers of new young tax-paying immigrants helps?

Well Ferrovial are saying that they can run the BAA pension scheme just fine without any young influx. I wonder why :rolleyes:

chesterfield · 21 December 2007 at 2:31PM

One view (obviously the unions view) would be that they intend to scrap the whole scheme some time from now.

Another would be that they can afford to keep it propped up long enough for the existing mebers to receive their pensions and eventually drop off their perch (theres no subtle way of saying that).

As far as I am aware BAA have given near as damn it cast iron guarantees that existing members will not be affected by the proposals, and the union position seems to be that they dont believe them and are striking now to prevent something that may or may not happen at some point in the future? This certainly seems crazy to me.

There appears to be a few ways forward with FS schemes, either the scheme can remain untouched, which will result in the basic "more coming out than going in". Ruining the entire scheme for everyone.

They can close the scheme to new entrants in an effort to save the existing members, although it will clearly require funding for a period of time.

Or it can be closed for everyone, removing the risk of the scheme going belly up alltogether, but at considerable expense to the existing members.

I do hope that some agreement can be reached, but if the union dont back down on their position of wanting the scheme left untouched alltogether, then at some point in the future it may collapse alltogether, or certainly start the company looking at cost cutting in other areas to shore it up. Which may or may not be worse for the employees .

PS.
I must appologise for the remarks made earlier, an evening on the beer and a lovely hangover were probably contributory factors to my insults. Its no excuse I know, but its the best I can come up with. Sorry

zerovampyr · 21 December 2007 at 3:03PM

I have had flights booked for 28th December for MONTHS! I live in England and my Husband lives in America for reasons i won't bore you with right now but we see eachother every 3 or 4 months at the moment - I fly back on 14th January! (I leave Philadelphia on 14th and arrive in the UK on 15th!) Will I be affected by the last dates or not?!? I am most probably as confused as everybody else because although dates have been announced you know what strike action is like - its notoriously changeable and is likely to take a few twists and turns as the dates arrive and then (fingers crossed) don't actually happen because nobody is backing in and giving BAA workers what they are after.

Now. I am, yes, admittedly, a rather disgruntled traveller - or, i will be if my flight, which i have saved for 3 months for to be able to afford travelling over there with my son (on his first ever flight!), is cancelled!

However. I DO agree that some workers SHOULD fight for what they believe is a good, fair, pay and pension policy - Thing is, this time around it appears that most people are jumping on a bandwagon to try and get blood out of a stone, effectively, because if you look at the facts, if you get what you, as BAA workers, are asking for, you'll later be WORSE off as the schemes have little money and payback to offer.

I think that there should be other ways to deal with situations like this because the only real damage being done is to the people who've spent time and effort saving for these (lets face it, rather important) festive holidays in which most people get to see friends and relatives they wouldn;t normally get to see throughout the rest of the year - striking on the 7th is a rediculous choice of date! Many people would be flying back that day in order for their kids to go back to school on time.

I'm hoping that my flying out on 28th Dec and my arrival back on the morning of the 15th, will mean that I am one of the lucky ones - but i'm not holding my breath!

From what I can remember, the very exact same thing happened this time last year!

No disrespect, but i think its time to realise that things arent as they once were - people ARE living to grand old ages and pension schemes just can't cope or offer the things they used to. Its an unfortunate sign of the times we currently live in. Throwing your rattle out of your pram over it isn't going to win much support in the long run and, frankly, if I were a worker with BAA and I were unhappy with my future prospects and carreer/pension options (am i right in assuming its mainly new workers who havent even joined the baa workforce yet, or new members for which this strike is for - which in itself is just unf'k'n believeable) then i'd just go get another job in the first place - why start a job you know you're not going to get this pension etc in, when you know you're not going to be happy with what you're being offered (or not being offered as the case may be).

There just isnt enough money or funding generally right now. Our economy is shot to pieces and our government is making a right pigs ear of every single aspect of life in this country and until those basics are "fixed" how the hell ANYONE, in any job, not just those at BAA, expects to be treated fairly or be privvy to a nice windfall at the time of their pension, is frankly, unfathomable.

I'm sorry that you feel you need to strike and ruin peoples plans over christmas - perhaps if there were better reasons for the strike, a few people would be a little more sympathetic. If i went on strike every five minutes with the work i do, i'd expect my !!! to be fired for being so bloody childish. Although. put in teh same position, if it was a case of working for BAA for YEARS and then being screwed out of a pension, I'd obviously have to consider what action is NECESSARY for my family and MY future. So i almost see both sides of the coin here. But not quite with all the information i see in front of me - i'm bothered by the fact it just appears to be a rediculous reason to strike when looking at all the evidence.

I hope that something gets sorted out and that everyone gets to see their loved ones over christmas and the new year! Lets hope things settle somewhere down the line - even if it does take bribery and strikes to get there. I just want to see my husband.