BAA strike

ali1972

ynot2005 wrote: »

now the dates have been published and its not over xmas and new year then all the outrage /anger will be forgotten and the big issue will be when to go to tescos before christmas day

Except for those of us "moaners" and "groaners" who actually have a s*dding holiday booked for January 14th... Christmas? Christmas is just 1 day off for those of us who will be working entertaining the majority of the masses at this time of year. It's the thought of a holiday in January that will get me through the "festive" season.

cheap_charlie

ynot2005 wrote: »

lets be honest no-one gives two sh**s about BAA employees, the union or the the company , the only thing that matters is wether the strike will affect you

now the dates have been published and its not over xmas and new year then all the outrage /anger will be forgotten and the big issue will be when to go to tescos before christmas day

i wonder if those who moaned and groaned about the strike will bother to follow the story over the coming months when their flight is a distant memory

no chance

So true.

I am going to be affected by this strike...we have a BA flight booked on 7th January between LGW and EDI.

Having weighed up the pros and cons, I have decided to just book a one way train ticket that day - it will cost less than changing our booking with BA if I book today and it will save me a lot of hassle with re-arranging a cancelled flight.

I obviously hope the strike doesn't go ahead but in my opinion the strikers have a valid grievance and I hope that the management realise this.

vermont100

d123 wrote: »

Why bother PM'ing an idiot like that, I've reported most of his insulting posts, they shouldnt be around much longer.

everyones entitled to their opinions and although myself and sturll obviously wound eachother up we have made our peace and thats the way it should be.

vermont100

cherryred80 wrote: »

I'd like to point out that for unqualified work, BAA employees aren't low-paid. In fact, in recent months they've been given extra money as an incentive for not going off sick, extra money for deigning to do overtime (at at least time and a half) and depending on what shift they're on, they can get up to £650/month on top of their basic wage.

They take an average of 17 days off sick per year out of their six month full-pay entitlement, they get subsidised food, free parking, free uniform including coats, bags, scarves and shoes, they rarely finish work on time as they're allowed to go home early because it's what they've come to expect and the management is too scared to challenge them... need I go on?

ALSO (very important here) the unions have produced loads of posters and stickers, all of which state that closing the pension to new employees will mean it will be closed to existing workers. This is stated as fact. I can't say that they've communicated particularly well with all staff, as I've had a few colleagues asking me why they won't get paid if they're on strike....!

AND a number of newer employees who are union members were never sent ballot papers at all. Look at the numbers. Don't they seem a bit low? Less than 2000 people voted yes. Not much of a mandate in my book. If it goes ahead, I'm giving up my union membership.

just a few points ....... do you regard the fire service as unqualified work? i dont think so.do you regard airfield ops as unqualified work? not sure which department your in but you do not know much about the rest of baa. 2000 people voted yes 1000 no think thats roughly 66% . for the people who didnt get a ballot form there were plenty of oppertunities to phone the union and get a ballot paper sent as i did in the last week having not received one. very strange you think we should be grateful for getting a uniform free perhaps i should go out and buy my own leggings and tunic and maybe a breathing apparatus set while im there as well.
think rather then giving up your membership you should be thanking them that trying to look after your future pension rites. the bonus scheme you are talking about was to encourage staff to work extra hours because of the chaos during the summer ..... the reason there was chaos and a lack of staff was due to staff reductions in the first place. its easier to give someone a bonus rather then employ someone else on a fultime basis.one last thing you said the union did not communicate then you said there were lots of stickers relating to the ballot and pension..... !!!!!!!!! im assuming your management by your use of the word "them" when you talk about sickness levels. typical us and them attitude

debs66_2

I posted early on in this thread and have followed it each day. I will not say I am a legal buff or a pension expert, because I'm not, but i have followed the general gist of the facts as laid out.

I am 41 years old and after a messy divorce 9 years ago started again from scratch, which meant starting my own pension with what i could put into one as a then single mum. If i don't put into it, I don't get anything out. I do not rely on contributions from new members of staff, and I can see the flaws in this type of scheme. at some point they have to end. it simply sounds like a pyramid scheme with those at the bottom being on the weakest rung. Of course those at the top want it to continue, they are being fed from below.

In the last 6 and a half years in my current job, I have had 3 days off sick, from genuine sickness. i even went in on crutches once and had to get my partner to go with me to run up the office stairs and switch the alarm off because i couldn't walk well. My employer pays me for days off sick, and has increased my wages well over the years, because he knows I do not abuse the system or our small company.

I left my previous job for the one I am in because I was being held back by another member of staff. When it wasn't dealt with by the management, I didn't barricade the gates, I looked for alternative work, and found a job that would not hold me back. three years later I was made a director of the company.

my partner is a musician/sound engineer, and he works extra throughout christmas - like someone else pointed out, entertaining people for the holiday season. it's a hard couple of weeks, driving up and down the country, offloading and reloading heavy equipment in freezing temperatures, and doing it all again on a few hours sleep. he moans a bit, yes, but he will be the first to agree that he chose the job and the lifestyle and it goes with the territory. the guys in the band also schedule the first 2 weeks off in january for a well earned holiday after two mad weeks, and look forward to jetting off to warmer cliimes. one of them with a severly disabled son, which is no mean feat. luckily we live in the east midlands, so will not be affected, but that's not the point.

as i said before, some people seem to think that they are entitled to their company's profits if it does well. these people don't think about furthering their education and starting on a management ladder, or even setting up a small business - and i know a couple of people who did that and have done very well by working long hours, being dedicated, and using common sense. my own boss included, who has virtually nothing on paper in terms of exams, but is currently at his house in spain for xmas.

i do feel that the majority of people are not behind the strikers. my own opinion is that the public has been used as a tool in a blackmail plot. i do not agree to any of the namecalling on this thread, but i personally find this manipulation and lack of consideration for the public inexcusable, if not disgusting.

we are living in a different world and the way we do things is changing, mostly because of necessity. we can't look at the mass profits of our employers and say we deserve some of that, because we don't. we deserve what we have signed up for and should do the job we said we would do. if our companies remain in profit then we remain employed and perhaps more people might be given a job if the company expands. the shareholders also put money in to that company, at various risk levels, and either reap rewards or even lose out. anyone can buy shares if they wish.

finally, as a miner's daughter from many generations, who lived 30 yards away from the pit entrance throughout the 80s, i have seen the bitter side of striking, and it ain't pretty. it also did nothing to alter the seeds of change.

ali1972

Promises_my_foot wrote: »

So please don't be so short sighted and selfish if this effects your travel arrangements,

But calling the public selfish and short sighted will definitely not win them over. It just adds insult to injury. I am not selfish and I am not short sighted. Like the poster above's partner I will hardly pause for breath this Christmas and New Year ensuring that families have the best possible day out and get value for the money they'e saved up - some of them, I'm sure, BAA workers. I won't get to see my family anyway this Christmas. And I certainly won't make anything extra at this time of year. No, I'm not seeking sympathy (I choose my profession just like everyone else) but please don't tell me I'm selfish because I'm hacked off I might get my holiday in January. Beleive me, I can see the flip side. The word "strike" gets bandied around the 3 main entertainment industry unions (particularly mine) but I do not and will not condone it.

Perhaps I should have just not bothered paying for and planning the holiday and put the money into my personal (non final salary) pension.

debs66_2

i am sorry if that sounded like a tale of woe and despair, and i'm sorry you felt the need to make that comment when I did say i was opposed to the name calling. once again the BAA supporter/worker alienates the public with rudeness.

my points were made from some earlier comments from BBA staff, which smack of bitterness, as they quote how much profit the company has made this year, so they think they deserve more, and how they are given a 'crappy' £100 bonus, and how they 'even have to work on boxing day' - unlike everyone else in the country, i presume.

i hoped to merely point out that we are all in the same boat, but some of us don't have anything like the work benefits they have, but don't victimise others as a means to an end.

by the way, my life is just fab. and i made it that way :j :j :j

sproket

I was due to fly out on the 17th January 2008 on a family holiday. This is now in doubt due to the action of BAA employees voting in favour of strike action.

The irony of the situation that is personal to me is that I was a member of the Unite union (the union behind this action) and that I work for a company that runs a final salary pension scheme and a money purchase pension scheme.

Firstly my membership with the union was cancelled upon hearing the news of the strike action. How can I support an organisation that will cause my family and myself emotional distress and financial loss? Secondly, I belong to the money purchase pension scheme because I joined my company after they closed their final salary pension scheme to new joiners. It doesn't take a genius to work out that I would be better off under the final salary pension scheme but this is the reality of the modern workplace.

It's about time the union updates its thinking and realise that striking will achieve nothing productive and only generate ill-will for its cause amongst the public. One only has to look at the industries that were killed off during the 1970's, 80's and 90's due to the various unions refusing to adapt their well founded values in order to compete with the superior competition abroad.

Wake up and smell the coffee. The rest of the world is moving forward in civil avation. I should know; I work in civil aviation and times are getting tougher as we try to compete in this sector with the rest of the world. This strike will only give them more ammunition in attracting investment away from the UK.

chesterfield

Promises_my_foot wrote: »

Hi debs66, my two penneth...

The rug from under their feet is being whipped away.

Got kind of lost in your personnel tale of despair and sadness, a bit of topic, but I agree with your quote. I felt the rest of your article was a bit contradictory.

I’m glad you understand the plight of the BAA staff, there is nothing more frustrating than having financial plans ruined.
Simply put, the staff are not getting what they signed up for, for the job they said they would do. The staffs only wants are to have what was agreed when they signed their contract, they are NOT in dispute about the profit, they do not want a chunk of the profits. What they can’t understand is why the company can profit so much without considering the original terms of contract. “a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between parties that the law will enforce” that’s why the BAA staff are planning action.

If you have a 5 year fixed rate mortgage and your lender ups the payment fees without negotiation, it’s only natural that you are going to react. Would you agree?

Sorry to sound a little bit like a stuck record, but again, exactly what is being changed for these existing members, the ones who have voted for strike.

If the changes go ahead - what effect do they have on these current members, if BAA back down, exactly what will change for the people who voted for strike action.

If the fund NEEDS the input from new members in order to meet its payout obligations, doesnt this prove it is no longer viable? Who will pay for the new members when they retire, or are the existing members just wanting to make sure their payout is safe, and to hell with the new members when they get to retirement age?

It really does appear to be be baseless at best, and of course if the posts here are true about the very misleading information put out by the unions, and if they havent even bothered to inform the members that they wont get paid if they strike - it really does seem as though the union has conducted a very biassed process, and most certainly not acted in the best interests of the members.

I hope for the sake of all those affected by the proposed action that the two sides can reach an agreement, it will be interesting to see how it pans out.

trudiha

TonyMcQueen wrote: »

Look - if you all let your employers walk all over you then that's your choice. We are standing together to tell BAA that we're not going to be pushed around.
A good living pension is the reason that people have haulled other people's luggage around for 30 years and this is the first step to taking that all away.

Tell me, Is it fair that BAA makes hundreds of millions every year for their shareholders and still try to take more from us? A lousy £100 christmas bonus doesn't buy much festive spirit when some workers are even expected to come to work on boxing day.

Everyone has been given plenty of warning and if 'Grannies', 'Babies' or, as more likely, Rich city bankers haven't recheduled and are caught up, so be it.
But I still don't understand why people think their week skiing in Aspen is more important than our quality of life during retirement.

I don't know quite what your agenda is, Tony, but I know that if you were a BAA employee you'd have a much better idea of what this year's Christmas bonus actually is...

Perhaps you'd be kind enough to come back an explain why you are trying to make BAA employees look so bad?