well done BA staff

pat1cp

daviesee wrote:

I don't know all the facts but from personal experience I can safely say that a 10% cut is better than a 100% cut and that is the dark future of BA.
The company is making massive loses so how will striking during a busy period, losing even more money help the future of the company, or the employees?

Circa £ 300 million according to reports.

markos1963

Hmmmm...... Its funny all these people on TV complaining about how hard things are and how they had to take a pay cut and the BA crew should cut off their right arms just because the've got a job, then they turn around and say that their flight to the Carribean for the winter is going to be cancelled. If things were that tight then why didn't they fly Virgin/Ryanair instead of BA?

As usual the press is now turning things around, it started as a dispute over terms and conditions and protecting jobs now they are saying its over a pay rise. Who do you believe?

A working man/woman has only one real power against a tyranical employer, their right to withdraw labour. Now, when to do that is debatable, do you do it when it causes least disruption but it prolongs the action until it haves an effect or do you hit hard and fast to get the point across quickly, you decide.

disgruntledgoat

Markos, I'm gonna believe Unite who's representative on R4 this morning said they were after a reversal of the decision to cut cabin staff from 15 to 14 on on haul flights, no change to Ts & Cs for new entrants and a couple of other, smaller demands.

As for why people shouldn't be fussed that they're now going to lose their money on a service they've paid for... words fail me. A 12 day strike is clearly aimed at crippling th employer and gambling that the government will put up some cash. Despicable.

daviesee

markos1963 wrote:

Hmmmm......

A working man/woman has only one real power against a tyranical employer, their right to withdraw labour. Now, when to do that is debatable, do you do it when it causes least disruption but it prolongs the action until it haves an effect or do you hit hard and fast to get the point across quickly, you decide.

Been there, done that.
Made a point and drastically affected the companies outlook.
I then had to find a new job along with another several hundred.

Drastically decided for me the effectiveness of striking

rake

many people have had to take pay cuts. its not nice but why should ba be exempt.the car industry had massive layoffs for weeks at a time but i dont recall them striking. i can see why they are trying to resist pay cutting. it saddens me that we will all have to tighten our belts because of dodgy lending and gambling by the fortunate ones.

MadammeMarie

skinson wrote:

I seem to remember the last lot of folk who went on strike for more pay got slated on here too!
As I said then If it were not for people like that willing to risk their livleyhoods the working man would not be in the position we are today. We'd still be working in the feudal system! I get so fed of hearing the same old rhetoric. "should be lucky they have a job" ...." there are thousands waiting to fill their places" ...."someone else pays less" WELL SO WHAT?
If you and the rest who call these, "working class hero's" yet cry to you and yours behind closed doors then shame on you. You deserve all you get. Me, I've been a union member for 37 years and have been on many pay and condition strikes, and won better of both. If you haven't the balls to do it yourself then don't whinge and whine when others show they have what it takes to be called "working class heroes! Because as I see it, you're lower than a dwarfs bike pedal.
Dave

AMEN, Dave!

I do remember the "take a pay cut for the good of the company to keep your jobs" story in the papers, and I immediately thought: this is going to end up in a strike! And, now that Iberia took over, good luck BA emplyees. When Iberia took over Aerolineas ARgentinas, it was the same story, they made the staff's lives a missery, especially cabin crew.

jedster

rake,

it saddens me that we will all have to tighten our belts because of dodgy lending and gambling by the fortunate ones.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending the jokers who lent far too much money at the wrong rates to the wrong borrowers - but we are not having to tighten our belts because of the gambling bankers (assume that's who you are referring to).

The Govt has bailed out the banks to a huge extent but the current estimate is that they (i.e., we!) will get all that back except about £10bn.

Now obviously £10bn is a serious lump of cash but it's not very big compared to the £170bn MORE THAN IT RAISES IN TAX that the government will spend EACH YEAR for the next two years. This £170bn per year is because the Govt believed that it the economy was much better than it actually was. They didnt realise that the tax take over the last 5 years was boosted by steroids of cheap debt - they thought that profits, pay and therefore tax would rise forever. So they spent it all. In fact they spent more than all of it (i.e., they borrowed even more).

So why are we having to tightening our belts?

Imagine you are the owner of Ferrari dealership in London.

For several years, bankers keep knocking on your door waving loads of money and paying whatever you ask for your cars. You are making loads of money.

Do you:
a) Say, this can't go on for ever. I'd better pay down my mortgage and stuff some cash away for a rainy day
b) Spend it all on doing up your house, holidays, expensive clothes. Then borrow some more to buy a holiday home - after all if the bankers keep buying your cars you'll easily be able to pay the bills.

It matters because if the bankers stop making so much money, in situation a) it's a pity but you are fine, in b) you are in a right royal mess.

Basically Gordon Brown did b). He assumed it would go on forever and that he could spend loads on schools and hospitals while keeping taxes relatively low. Oops.

Basically the country ran up a huge credit card bill, then we lost all our lovely overtime pay, then the credit card company told us they wouldn't increase our limit and now it's baked beans on toast and summer holidays in Skegness until we've paid off some of the debt.

Interesting question is why Brown got it so wrong (I'm no fan but he is not an idiot). I think it is probably just the natural human tendency to believe what was palatable and convenient. He really wanted to improve schools and hospitals (and I'm not knocking that), if he believed that the boom would continue then he could keep hosing money at health and education without doing the politically difficult stuff (telling the tax payers that we'd have to pay more for it, reforming the services to make the more efficient).

Unfortunately, reality bites. In this case like a particularly bad tempered bull mastiff.

So yeah, the bankers screwed up. But don't fall for the line that we are tightening our belts because of them. We are tightening our belts because Gordon chose to assume that party could go on forever and it didn't.

J

Anonymous

stfc1

I don't know the details but I'll back any worker who feels the need to strike. 'They' might try to convince you otherwise, but it's still them and us. It always has been and it always will be.

jedster

'They' might try to convince you otherwise, but it's still them and us. It always has been and it always will be.

I actually agree with that funnily enough - it's capital versus labour in the end. Problem is that capital is footloose and fancy free and will quite happily headover to Virgin where labour is more accommodating.

The only thing that labour can really do to gain power is
a) unionise in a true monopoly (The Tube comes to mind...)
b) develop skills that are in short supply

BA cabin crew haven't managed either so their strike is basically like setting fire to the aeroplane over the Atlantic because you've fallen out with the pilot. Might be satisfying for a moment but unlikely to really deliver what you were looking for...

shinyhelmut

stfc1 wrote:

I don't know the details but I'll back any worker who feels the need to strike. 'They' might try to convince you otherwise, but it's still them and us. It always has been and it always will be.

I do know the details. UNITE/BASSA had every opportunity to negotiate but chose not to. Every other department in BA has made savings. The crew reductions will save BA money without reducing the pay of the Cabin Crew. No-one is losing their job who didn't want to, 1000 crew have taken voluntary redundancy and 3000 have opted for part time contracts.

You may have gathered I have little sympathy for the union. I do however have a lot of sympathy for the crew who have been ineptly into the current position.

Jez mon

jedster wrote:

rake,

it saddens me that we will all have to tighten our belts because of dodgy lending and gambling by the fortunate ones.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending the jokers who lent far too much money at the wrong rates to the wrong borrowers - but we are not having to tighten our belts because of the gambling bankers (assume that's who you are referring to).

The Govt has bailed out the banks to a huge extent but the current estimate is that they (i.e., we!) will get all that back except about £10bn.

Now obviously £10bn is a serious lump of cash but it's not very big compared to the £170bn MORE THAN IT RAISES IN TAX that the government will spend EACH YEAR for the next two years. This £170bn per year is because the Govt believed that it the economy was much better than it actually was. They didnt realise that the tax take over the last 5 years was boosted by steroids of cheap debt - they thought that profits, pay and therefore tax would rise forever. So they spent it all. In fact they spent more than all of it (i.e., they borrowed even more).

So why are we having to tightening our belts?

Imagine you are the owner of Ferrari dealership in London.

For several years, bankers keep knocking on your door waving loads of money and paying whatever you ask for your cars. You are making loads of money.

Do you:
a) Say, this can't go on for ever. I'd better pay down my mortgage and stuff some cash away for a rainy day
b) Spend it all on doing up your house, holidays, expensive clothes. Then borrow some more to buy a holiday home - after all if the bankers keep buying your cars you'll easily be able to pay the bills.

It matters because if the bankers stop making so much money, in situation a) it's a pity but you are fine, in b) you are in a right royal mess.

Basically Gordon Brown did b). He assumed it would go on forever and that he could spend loads on schools and hospitals while keeping taxes relatively low. Oops.

Basically the country ran up a huge credit card bill, then we lost all our lovely overtime pay, then the credit card company told us they wouldn't increase our limit and now it's baked beans on toast and summer holidays in Skegness until we've paid off some of the debt.

Interesting question is why Brown got it so wrong (I'm no fan but he is not an idiot). I think it is probably just the natural human tendency to believe what was palatable and convenient. He really wanted to improve schools and hospitals (and I'm not knocking that), if he believed that the boom would continue then he could keep hosing money at health and education without doing the politically difficult stuff (telling the tax payers that we'd have to pay more for it, reforming the services to make the more efficient).

Unfortunately, reality bites. In this case like a particularly bad tempered bull mastiff.

So yeah, the bankers screwed up. But don't fall for the line that we are tightening our belts because of them. We are tightening our belts because Gordon chose to assume that party could go on forever and it didn't.

J

Good post! Yep we can turn on the bankers till the cows come home, but Gordon chose to believe himself when he claimed to have removed boom and bust!!

So to get back to the matter in hand. Is it right for the cabin crew to strike? Well, by the sounds of it, possibly not! By the sounds of it, this isn't exactly your average working class job, it's basically getting paid 30k to fly around the world staying in nice hotels, of course there is the actual job part, but compare it to other jobs were you get paid 30k...

shinyhelmut

jedster wrote:

'They' might try to convince you otherwise, but it's still them and us. It always has been and it always will be.

I actually agree with that funnily enough - it's capital versus labour in the end. Problem is that capital is footloose and fancy free and will quite happily headover to Virgin where labour is more accommodating.

The only thing that labour can really do to gain power is
a) unionise in a true monopoly (The Tube comes to mind...)
b) develop skills that are in short supply

BA cabin crew haven't managed either so their strike is basically like setting fire to the aeroplane over the Atlantic because you've fallen out with the pilot. Might be satisfying for a moment but unlikely to really deliver what you were looking for...

Spot on. Fortunately I've never managed to upset my cabin crew that much!

stfc1

jedster wrote:

their strike is basically like setting fire to the aeroplane over the Atlantic because you've fallen out with the pilot. Might be satisfying for a moment but unlikely to really deliver what you were looking for...

Great analogy

Up the workers though!

simple_salmon

If we're in this trouble because of bankers and/or Gordon Brown, why is it being referred to as a global recession?

owenlars

stfc1 wrote:

jedster wrote:

Up the workers though!

Right up.......

jedster

If we're in this trouble because of bankers and/or Gordon Brown, why is it being referred to as a global recession?

Don't get me wrong - this is a global (well developed world) recession driven by a global credit cycle. Personally I think Alan Greenspan, the old head of the US Fed, has more blame than most. However, the reason that the adjustment to the recession is tougher here than in most ther countries is because
a) we benefitted more from the boom (hence change to bust is bigger)
b) we were less prudent in the boom (i.e., borrowed when we should have been saving)

It is latter point that is Brown's responsibility.

Of course if you were in his shoes you want to deflect people from that point by focusing on the bankers and the global nature. Oh!

rake

jedster wrote:

rake,

it saddens me that we will all have to tighten our belts because of dodgy lending and gambling by the fortunate ones.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not defending the jokers who lent far too much money at the wrong rates to the wrong borrowers - but we are not having to tighten our belts because of the gambling bankers (assume that's who you are referring to).

The Govt has bailed out the banks to a huge extent but the current estimate is that they (i.e., we!) will get all that back except about £10bn.

Now obviously £10bn is a serious lump of cash but it's not very big compared to the £170bn MORE THAN IT RAISES IN TAX that the government will spend EACH YEAR for the next two years. This £170bn per year is because the Govt believed that it the economy was much better than it actually was. They didnt realise that the tax take over the last 5 years was boosted by steroids of cheap debt - they thought that profits, pay and therefore tax would rise forever. So they spent it all. In fact they spent more than all of it (i.e., they borrowed even more).

So why are we having to tightening our belts?

Imagine you are the owner of Ferrari dealership in London.

For several years, bankers keep knocking on your door waving loads of money and paying whatever you ask for your cars. You are making loads of money.

Do you:
a) Say, this can't go on for ever. I'd better pay down my mortgage and stuff some cash away for a rainy day
b) Spend it all on doing up your house, holidays, expensive clothes. Then borrow some more to buy a holiday home - after all if the bankers keep buying your cars you'll easily be able to pay the bills.

It matters because if the bankers stop making so much money, in situation a) it's a pity but you are fine, in b) you are in a right royal mess.

Basically Gordon Brown did b). He assumed it would go on forever and that he could spend loads on schools and hospitals while keeping taxes relatively low. Oops.

Basically the country ran up a huge credit card bill, then we lost all our lovely overtime pay, then the credit card company told us they wouldn't increase our limit and now it's baked beans on toast and summer holidays in Skegness until we've paid off some of the debt.

Interesting question is why Brown got it so wrong (I'm no fan but he is not an idiot). I think it is probably just the natural human tendency to believe what was palatable and convenient. He really wanted to improve schools and hospitals (and I'm not knocking that), if he believed that the boom would continue then he could keep hosing money at health and education without doing the politically difficult stuff (telling the tax payers that we'd have to pay more for it, reforming the services to make the more efficient).

Unfortunately, reality bites. In this case like a particularly bad tempered bull mastiff.

So yeah, the bankers screwed up. But don't fall for the line that we are tightening our belts because of them. We are tightening our belts because Gordon chose to assume that party could go on forever and it didn't.

J

yes i see your point id not thought much about that destinction, its as much gordons fault for diving in with both feet as the bankers for trying to overstep the mark. but surely isnt it the bankers faults that mortgage lending crashed houses and new buyers went down leaving a lot of people in the negative cack with some having to sell . also businesses struggling for credit and a lot of people made redundant and the impact this all has on high street spending. i think gordon got it so wrong because hes out of touch with the average person.he only sees speadsheets of facts and figures and doesnt seem to equate that to the real person and the effect it has. i dont buy into the idea that we have to pay the bankers whatever they want because we need them. i could have got us into this mess for much less. even if much of the debt is recovered when will that be, its still made a big impact as of now. take your ferrari dealer in london hes always going to want the big money to buy his cars but when he buys his holiday home abroad thats more money gone from our economy. it gets spent on luxurys and doesnt circulate as far or wide. i dont understand why the tax payer is good enough to save the banks from their own mess and then they take over again when things pick up, why not just cut them out or have far tighter regulation. with housing and cars and many things if you pull the bottom rung from a stack of cards the whole lot gets lower. same goes for the vultures who are buying our oil supplies and parking the tankers offshore until the petrol prices go up effectively blackmailing us.how can this possibly be allowed to happen.its things like this and electricity ,water etc that are the building blocks of a country so why isnt the government in charge?
on the original point aviation has become so competitive there has to be some casualties.the number of people flying cant keep increasing (similar mentality to bankers and government) and cost can only go down until the pilot is kicking the planes tyres to see if theyre still inflated. maybe customers will go back to ba after the next airline disaster.

jedster

but surely isnt it the bankers faults that mortgage lending crashed houses and new buyers went down leaving a lot of people in the negative cack with some having to sell . also businesses struggling for credit and a lot of people made redundant and the impact this all has on high street spending

I'd put it a little differently:

It was (substantially) the bankers fault that TOO MUCH mortgage lending was going on in the boom. This happened to a great extent because the US Fed (Greenspan) kept interest rates too low for too long - encouraging banks to lend and borrowers to take out mortgages. The Govts could have gently snuffed out the boom earlier. THis would have prevented the crash. But they just enjoyed the boom and all that tax until the inevitable happened.

i dont buy into the idea that we have to pay the bankers whatever they want because we need them

I'm not sure that many people do. I think it is perfectly reasonable for Govts to impose windfall taxes this year. Assuming they can find a way that doesn't push them abroad. To get back to the original subject - that would be very much like the BA strike, satisfying for a moment but not actually much help in paying down the debt in the future...

markos1963

Ok then all the Union bashers, lets have it your way and lets see if you'll put up with this. If you want we'll go for a completely free of all responsibility repeal of all employee protection laws and rights that have been won by union members over the years. I'm sure that you'll love this.

No holidays
No contracts of employement
no redudndancy payments
variable and casual working hours
no restriction on driving hours for lorries/trains/planes/cars(delete where apllicable)
no minimum wages, or any wages(free market economy, lowest bidder wins the job)
no equal opportunities
no minimum working age
no maximum working age
no company pensions
no health and safety laws
no protective clothing/equipment


I'm sure our economy will be far better for this

rake

quote jebster-. I think it is perfectly reasonable for Govts to impose windfall taxes this year. Assuming they can find a way that doesn't push them abroad.

if they want to go abroad let them go and crash their economy and find other people.im not saying new people couldnt do any worse they always can whatever its applied to, but its time to try our luck and that applies to any job when performance falls below acceptable levels. its a dangerous situation when people are considered unreplaceable in my opinion.

passout

Lets face it BA, as it stands, is doomed. Dated, problems with pensions, indifferent customer service, increasingly poor image....

stfc1

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Sky-Ne ... 0641318637

Them, and us.

Preaching austerity while pocketing that salary and paying a fortune to some very expensive lawyers in an attempt to block industrial action that has been democratically voted for by over 90 per cent of the workforce smacks just a little of hypocrisy to me.

I've already confessed that I don't know all the details, but generally speaking people do not vote to lose 12 days' pay for a laugh.

rake

markos1963 wrote:

Ok then all the Union bashers, lets have it your way and lets see if you'll put up with this. If you want we'll go for a completely free of all responsibility repeal of all employee protection laws and rights that have been won by union members over the years. I'm sure that you'll love this.

No holidays
No contracts of employement
no redudndancy payments
variable and casual working hours
no restriction on driving hours for lorries/trains/planes/cars(delete where apllicable)
no minimum wages, or any wages(free market economy, lowest bidder wins the job)
no equal opportunities
no minimum working age
no maximum working age
no company pensions
no health and safety laws
no protective clothing/equipment


I'm sure our economy will be far better for this

sounds like a lot of the places ive worked which i think tends to cause the reaction if ive had to i dont give a stuff about you, which is counter productive but thats what bitterness does. at risk of sidetracking i left a job because of joke safety equipment and procedures and a lot of lowest bidder workers coming from other countrys and yes they won. but i am just pleased i still have two arms and eyesight to ride my bike.
im afraid that seems to be the way things are going and its happened to a lot of people who have ran out of empathy.

verylonglegs

markos1963 wrote:

Ok then all the Union bashers, lets have it your way and lets see if you'll put up with this. If you want we'll go for a completely free of all responsibility repeal of all employee protection laws and rights that have been won by union members over the years. I'm sure that you'll love this.

No holidays
No contracts of employement
no redudndancy payments
variable and casual working hours
no restriction on driving hours for lorries/trains/planes/cars(delete where apllicable)
no minimum wages, or any wages(free market economy, lowest bidder wins the job)
no equal opportunities
no minimum working age
no maximum working age
no company pensions
no health and safety laws
no protective clothing/equipment


I'm sure our economy will be far better for this

The thing is though these laws all now exist in order to protect employees and reduce the need for strikes that could fatally damage a business. I don't think anyone has posted suggesting repealing any laws, its just that you could argue with all these things in place unions are almost redundant. I know I've never felt the need to join one and view them as a relic of the past tbh along with some of the 'working class' rhetoric on this thread.
I think the 'them' and 'us' mentality is very backward and sounds like people almost selling themselves short and accepting their lot because its easier than putting the effort in to get somewhere. In this country there is nothing to stop you starting your own business or doing some further education and become what you perceive as 'them'. Not saying it doesn't take a huge amount of effort but its certainly possible.

markos1963

verylonglegs wrote:

markos1963 wrote:

Ok then all the Union bashers, lets have it your way and lets see if you'll put up with this. If you want we'll go for a completely free of all responsibility repeal of all employee protection laws and rights that have been won by union members over the years. I'm sure that you'll love this.

No holidays
No contracts of employement
no redudndancy payments
variable and casual working hours
no restriction on driving hours for lorries/trains/planes/cars(delete where apllicable)
no minimum wages, or any wages(free market economy, lowest bidder wins the job)
no equal opportunities
no minimum working age
no maximum working age
no company pensions
no health and safety laws
no protective clothing/equipment


I'm sure our economy will be far better for this

The thing is though these laws all now exist in order to protect employees and reduce the need for strikes that could fatally damage a business. I don't think anyone has posted suggesting repealing any laws, its just that you could argue with all these things in place unions are almost redundant. I know I've never felt the need to join one and view them as a relic of the past tbh along with some of the 'working class' rhetoric on this thread.
I think the 'them' and 'us' mentality is very backward and sounds like people almost selling themselves short and accepting their lot because its easier than putting the effort in to get somewhere. In this country there is nothing to stop you starting your own business or doing some further education and become what you perceive as 'them'. Not saying it doesn't take a huge amount of effort but its certainly possible.

What I'm getting at is that there is still some way to go and without unions and people willing to stand up and back themselves these laws will be eroded

jedster

What I'm getting at is that there is still some way to go and without unions and people willing to stand up and back themselves these laws will be eroded

I don't think any (many?) of us are suggesting that Unions should be scrapped just that they shouldn't shoot themselves in the foot by striking when their employer is struggling for survival...

rake

i dont think were there yet where everyone has the same opportunities. education still costs a lot of money then you have the social class thing which is alive and well.

passout

rake wrote:

i dont think were there yet where everyone has the same opportunities. education still costs a lot of money then you have the social class thing which is alive and well.

Always have, always will - it's a universal truth.

markos1963

I could understand BA management asking for a 30% pay cut if they were willing to reinstate it as and when the company gets back into profit but we all know that will never happen. It'll be 2% max for the next 20 years and some of those staff may never again enjoy the same standard of living they have now.

Most of the losses made by BA have been because of their poor planning in buying their fuel, now the staff are being asked to pay for that mismanagement.