OT - UNITE/BA

il_principe

Can someone who understands the mentality of the modern union please explain to me what the f*ck is going on in the minds of Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson? Do they not understand that private businesses have to be profitable at some stage?

Greg T

I've got to fly to Hong Kong the week after next - would have flown BA, now flying Quantas.

Cut your own throats...

They appear to have the best pay and conditions in the business - I'm not getting it.

always_tyred

Il Principe wrote:

Can someone who understands the mentality of the modern union please explain to me what the f*ck is going on in the minds of Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson? Do they not understand that private businesses have to be profitable at some stage?

They just rented a DVD, where there were these two guys (a good guy and a baddie) wrestling in this plane. The bad guy had shot the pilot and the plane is like heading for the ground real quick, and the gun is sliding all over the place.

Really cool. The good guy won and saved the plane at the last minute.

I think that's the jist of their thinking, anyway.

Oh, and they are union employees so they don't lose any money if everyone goes on strike.

rjsterry

As far as I understand it, UNITE are well aware that BA need to cut costs and that this will mean changes to their working conditions, so I think the two sides agree on the general principle. From what I have heard, a deal is not far away if the two sides could calm down and stop thumping their chests so much. The latest strike is actually about the retaliatory removal of perks by BA from those who participated in the first strike - quite within BA's rights, but bound to cause further antagonism. I also don't think BA's tactic of getting the strike stopped over a pretty minor technicality (albeit a valid one) has helped either. I've no great love for the unions, but this dispute seems to be being dragged out by both sides trying to prove that they can tough it out.

asprilla

This lot and the RMT make me want to hurt kittens.

They get paid a lot more than the industry average whilse their company is making a loss and they still want their cushy lives to continue as normal. Unfortunately real life isn't like that.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Il Principe wrote:

Can someone who understands the mentality of the modern union please explain to me what the f*ck is going on in the minds of Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson? Do they not understand that private businesses have to be profitable at some stage?

These boys aren't fro anything you'd call a modern union. They're straight out of the 1970s. Probably been watching Ashes to Ashes too much.

So, as I understand it, this strike isn't about working conditions, or pay, or any "proper" trade union/employee stuff. It's about getting BA to withdraw the sanctions they imposed on employees who went on strike last time (removal of travel benefits) and reinstating employees sacked for bullying or harassment.

Now, imagine you're a BA employee who worked through the last strike for any number of reasons, including that you wanted to keep your travel benefits. Then you'd been called a scab repeatedly. Feel let down at all by BA if they give in to the latest demands?


ETA: these bozos may, I suppose, think that no Govt would let the flag carrier fail. So they bring BA to its knees for it to be nationalised, a la Northern Rock. Then they look forward to comfy public sector employment. What (I hope) is more likely is a restructuring of BA via administration, ditching its crippling pension scheme on the way.

il_principe

Well it's clear that there are going to be no winners. But if the company I worked for was losing money hand over fist, I'd expect to perhaps lose my job/take a pay cut/work harder etc... why do these cabin crew think they're so damn special that economic realities shouldn't apply to them?

always_tyred

Maybe they've figured out that Lufthansa have better t&c's, so when they buy what's left of BA in 2011, they'll be better off.

And you thought they were all just air heads with nice hair and a warm, orange glow.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Greg T wrote:

I've got to fly to Hong Kong the week after next - would have flown BA, now flying Quantas.

Cut your own throats...

Aren't a lot of those QF flights to Hong Kong codeshares with BA, flying in BA planes? Sure you're OK?

Greg T

Greg66 wrote:

Aren't a lot of those QF flights to Hong Kong codeshares with BA, flying in BA planes? Sure you're OK?

You are right - but this is a proper Kangaroo branded fair dinkum Jumbo

MadammeMarie

Greg T wrote:

I've got to fly to Hong Kong the week after next - would have flown BA, now flying Quantas.

Cut your own throats...

They appear to have the best pay and conditions in the business - I'm not getting it.

Maybe BA wants to take that away from them...?

I read in a newspaper a month ago or so - in an article about the average British salary and what some people earn - that cabin crew get paid 20 grand a year and they are loosing their perks on a daily basis. 20 grand, though way above minimum wage, it's not exactly a great salary. I was quite surprised by that, I thought that they earned a lot more!

MadammeMarie

rjsterry wrote:

The latest strike is actually about the retaliatory removal of perks by BA from those who participated in the first strike - quite within BA's rights, but bound to cause further antagonism.

That's like sacking employees for striking. Is that legal? If it is, then it's a f***ing joke! Where is the right to strike, then?

MadammeMarie

Il Principe wrote:

Well it's clear that there are going to be no winners. But if the company I worked for was losing money hand over fist, I'd expect to perhaps lose my job/take a pay cut/work harder etc... why do these cabin crew think they're so damn special that economic realities shouldn't apply to them?

Didn't they take a pay cut last year already?

Aguila

MadammeMarie wrote:

Greg T wrote:

I've got to fly to Hong Kong the week after next - would have flown BA, now flying Quantas.

Cut your own throats...

They appear to have the best pay and conditions in the business - I'm not getting it.

Maybe BA wants to take that away from them...?

I read in a newspaper a month ago or so - in an article about the average British salary and what some people earn - that cabin crew get paid 20 grand a year and they are loosing their perks on a daily basis. 20 grand, though way above minimum wage, it's not exactly a great salary. I was quite surprised by that, I thought that they earned a lot more!

It's not exactly highly skilled work though is it? How much should you expect for handing out food/drink and running through standard sequences for takeoff/landing.

rjsterry

Il Principe wrote:

Well it's clear that there are going to be no winners. But if the company I worked for was losing money hand over fist, I'd expect to perhaps lose my job/take a pay cut/work harder etc... why do these cabin crew think they're so damn special that economic realities shouldn't apply to them?

To be fair, I think that is just BA's spin on it. As far as I understand, the cabin crews agree that there will have to be some big changes to cut costs, and as I said, the two sides aren't actually that far apart on the detail of a deal. It seems to be the case that BA/Willie Walsh doesn't want to lose face by being seen to concede to UNITE, perhaps because that would send the 'wrong' message to shareholders. I suspect UNITE's position is also largely to do with not losing face as well.

Greg T

MadammeMarie wrote:

That's like sacking employees for striking. Is that legal? If it is, then it's a f***ing joke!

No it's withdrawing a purely discretionary and not contractually required perk.

You can bet unite would have them in front if a court in short order if it wasn't legal.

You can strike or you can have your perks but you can't deliberately sabotage a company in the faces of its customers and still epxect them to give you gifts in the middle of a really big recession when everyones reducing their travel.

rjsterry

MadammeMarie wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

The latest strike is actually about the retaliatory removal of perks by BA from those who participated in the first strike - quite within BA's rights, but bound to cause further antagonism.

That's like sacking employees for striking. Is that legal? If it is, then it's a f***ing joke! Where is the right to strike, then?

No it isn't, the free/low cost travel is a concession to staff. If it were part of their pay package, it would have to be taxed and so on, and then it's removal would be illegal (I think). As it is just a perk, BA can withdraw it at will. That said, its withdrawal as a punitive measure was always going to increase hostilities.

The Rookie

What made me laugh was the footage of BA employees who turned up at unite to vote in person, none of your old Mondeos and focus's for this lot, it was all Audi TT's and Mini CooperS's..........

Your company looses £530M and you expect nothing to change?

Simon

always_tyred

MadammeMarie wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

Well it's clear that there are going to be no winners. But if the company I worked for was losing money hand over fist, I'd expect to perhaps lose my job/take a pay cut/work harder etc... why do these cabin crew think they're so damn special that economic realities shouldn't apply to them?

Didn't they take a pay cut last year already?

No, the pilots, ground staff and management took a pay cut, as I understand things.

The cabin crew went on strike, wholly out of step with public opinion and even prevailing opinion within their own organisation.

There is something going on now that is beyond the original strike issues.

My read is that the management are trying to make it basically impossible for this to happen again, with this particular union. Arguably, the cabin crew were wildly out of step in voting the way they did in the first place and BA are trying to let them know this in no uncertain terms, by the back door.

Further, my understanding is that these "perks" are essentially the equivalent of a bonus. Outside of banking, a bonus is related to performance. If you go on strike, (a) you don't get paid and (b) your company doesn't meet certain targets. I wonder if the cabin crew/union aren't actually trying to have their cake and eat it here.

lost_in_thought

Aguila wrote:

MadammeMarie wrote:

Greg T wrote:

I've got to fly to Hong Kong the week after next - would have flown BA, now flying Quantas.

Cut your own throats...

They appear to have the best pay and conditions in the business - I'm not getting it.

Maybe BA wants to take that away from them...?

I read in a newspaper a month ago or so - in an article about the average British salary and what some people earn - that cabin crew get paid 20 grand a year and they are loosing their perks on a daily basis. 20 grand, though way above minimum wage, it's not exactly a great salary. I was quite surprised by that, I thought that they earned a lot more!

It's not exactly highly skilled work though is it? How much should you expect for handing out food/drink and running through standard sequences for takeoff/landing.

BA crew actually get paid quite a lot more than that as a basic once they've been with the company a few years. They also get travel allowances, basically they're paid per flight and per stopover, which bumps up their salary by about 10k per annum. A friend who's crewed with BA for 6 years (and is anti-strikes) earned about £48k last year. That's a fair bit.

For comparative purposes, another friend who's been with Virgin for 5 years is still on a basic of £17k, and that goes up to about £30k with travel allowances, but Virgin is long-haul only so the travel allowances are higher.

What the union are striking about this time is the removal of a perk, not an allowance, it's the freebie flights they get as part of their package for themselves, friends and family.

In a perfect world they'd just sack all the striking bloodsucking idiots. How is this allowed to continue? Get rid of them all. Everyone's taking pay cuts, grow up and get real.

spen666

Greg T wrote:

MadammeMarie wrote:

That's like sacking employees for striking. Is that legal? If it is, then it's a f***ing joke!

No it's withdrawing a purely discretionary and not contractually required perk.

You can bet unite would have them in front if a court in short order if it wasn't legal.

You can strike or you can have your perks but you can't deliberately sabotage a company in the faces of its customers and still epxect them to give you gifts in the middle of a really big recession when everyones reducing their travel.

+1 and of course the strikers were warned BEFORE they went on strike of the consequences - ie they would lose their perks if they went on strike.

stuaff

The CWU's the same (though they do finally seem to have understood they have to work with Royal Mail management not against it..at least for the time being). If BA staff screw up my trip to Warsaw I will not be happy...I get fed up with all these idiots bleating on about how they're oppressed, underpaid, blah blah blah....f*** off and find another job then. Oh no, you can't find anywhere that treats you so well, so you just annoy the rest of us with your suicidal tactics.

rolf_f

MadammeMarie wrote:

I read in a newspaper a month ago or so - in an article about the average British salary and what some people earn - that cabin crew get paid 20 grand a year and they are loosing their perks on a daily basis. 20 grand, though way above minimum wage, it's not exactly a great salary. I was quite surprised by that, I thought that they earned a lot more!

Best not to read those sort of stats. In reality, these so called averages seem to generally be grossly hyped so that most of the population read the numbers and end up thinking they are underpaid.

However, there are undoubtedly examples where the pay scales are bonkers and LiTs figures seem depressingly believable; 48k for a glorified canteen worker is bonkers.

Mind you, Willie Wonkalsh is clearly an idiot; if it really is now just about the perks, BAs fight simply isn't worth the bother. How these people get their jobs I will never know.

rjsterry

Everyone's taking pay cuts, grow up and get real.

So how many on here have actually had a pay cut over the last year then?

Oh, and yes, I have. About 14% last year, but back up this year (so far)

il_principe

rjsterry wrote:

Everyone's taking pay cuts, grow up and get real.

So how many on here have actually had a pay cut over the last year then?

Oh, and yes, I have. About 14% last year, but back up this year (so far)

I haven't. But then I work in a revenue generating role fro a company of 8, so providing I pull my finger out and bring in the bacon I can feel fairly satisfied. We had to make one redundancy in the admin team though and last year was pretty tough. Because we're so small all employees are acutely aware of where we stand financially and expectations alter accordingly. It's not rocket science.

always_tyred

lost_in_thought wrote:

BA crew actually get paid quite a lot more than that as a basic once they've been with the company a few years. They also get travel allowances, basically they're paid per flight and per stopover, which bumps up their salary by about 10k per annum. A friend who's crewed with BA for 6 years (and is anti-strikes) earned about £48k last year. That's a fair bit.

I think this is a little misleading. If I travel for work (okay, so that is not a feature of this professsion..... but IF I travelled for work) and I have to stay away for the night, I call that expenses. I never see the money and it wouldn't have been spent at all had I been in my own bed.

The perks in question are discounted flights to use in their own time, which I do not think come to more than the equivalent of a few thousand a year.

But the salient point is that BA staff are paid about 30% more than the industry average. Even Unite concede this. As such, its basically tough titty if the organisation that pays you more than the going rate and looses wads of cash in the process has to reform.

The role of a union is not to defend wages and conditions at all costs, it is to seek fair and reasonable conditions and pay under the circumstances at hand. Most unions behave, however, as though the only way is up, and any degradation of terms under any circumstances is resisted to the hilt. Hence, fighting over who gets to steer the sinking ship.

This dispute started because the unions unreasonably resisted reasonable measures to save a failing company. Now its just an argument. The company is still failing.

always_tyred

I should add that in the long run, the cabin crew have ensured that more austerity measures will be required in total, for them and their colleagues in different roles. As such, even if they get BA to give them back the penny, the pound will have rolled into the gutter. This is a prime example of missing the big picture. The image of staff CELEBRATING that they could go on strike will last long in the memory.

rjsterry

Il Principe wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Everyone's taking pay cuts, grow up and get real.

So how many on here have actually had a pay cut over the last year then?

Oh, and yes, I have. About 14% last year, but back up this year (so far)

I haven't. But then I work in a revenue generating role fro a company of 8, so providing I pull my finger out and bring in the bacon I can feel fairly satisfied. We had to make one redundancy in the admin team though and last year was pretty tough. Because we're so small all employees are acutely aware of where we stand financially and expectations alter accordingly. It's not rocket science.

Similar situation here. It was all done in a very frank and open way, and we were given the 'option' of 4-day week or redundancies, so unsurprisingly everyone went for the former. I think small businesses are a bit different though - it's a lot easier to have a frank, direct conversation between director(s) and staff.

It just struck me that it's very easy to say that someone else should 'get real' and accept a pay cut/longer hours/whatever, but a lot harder to go through it yourself.

lost_in_thought

Always Tyred wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

BA crew actually get paid quite a lot more than that as a basic once they've been with the company a few years. They also get travel allowances, basically they're paid per flight and per stopover, which bumps up their salary by about 10k per annum. A friend who's crewed with BA for 6 years (and is anti-strikes) earned about £48k last year. That's a fair bit.

I think this is a little misleading. If I travel for work (okay, so that is not a feature of this professsion..... but IF I travelled for work) and I have to stay away for the night, I call that expenses. I never see the money and it wouldn't have been spent at all had I been in my own bed.

The perks in question are discounted flights to use in their own time, which I do not think come to more than the equivalent of a few thousand a year.

But the salient point is that BA staff are paid about 30% more than the industry average. Even Unite concede this. As such, its basically tough titty if the organisation that pays you more than the going rate and looses wads of cash in the process has to reform.

The role of a union is not to defend wages and conditions at all costs, it is to seek fair and reasonable conditions and pay under the circumstances at hand. Most unions behave, however, as though the only way is up, and any degradation of terms under any circumstances is resisted to the hilt. Hence, fighting over who gets to steer the sinking ship.

This dispute started because the unions unreasonably resisted reasonable measures to save a failing company. Now its just an argument. The company is still failing.

Completely agree re expenses, however this is rather different - I haven't explained myself very well. They get paid extra for flying, whether it's to Manchester where they won't even leave the aircraft, or to Sydney where they may have a 3-night stopover. On long-haul, their room and meals (varies whether it's all 3 or just 1 or 2) are paid for directly by the airline, the money they receive is on top of that, and they can do what they want with it - sometimes it will buy meals, but they're welcome (as most do) to get a £3 hot dog and spend the rest on a fetching hat.

Hope that's clearer.

il_principe

rjsterry wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Everyone's taking pay cuts, grow up and get real.

So how many on here have actually had a pay cut over the last year then?

Oh, and yes, I have. About 14% last year, but back up this year (so far)

I haven't. But then I work in a revenue generating role fro a company of 8, so providing I pull my finger out and bring in the bacon I can feel fairly satisfied. We had to make one redundancy in the admin team though and last year was pretty tough. Because we're so small all employees are acutely aware of where we stand financially and expectations alter accordingly. It's not rocket science.

Similar situation here. It was all done in a very frank and open way, and we were given the 'option' of 4-day week or redundancies, so unsurprisingly everyone went for the former. I think small businesses are a bit different though - it's a lot easier to have a frank, direct conversation between director(s) and staff.

It just struck me that it's very easy to say that someone else should 'get real' and accept a pay cut/longer hours/whatever, but a lot harder to go through it yourself.

Think you'll find that Lit did go through redundancy etc anyway...

lost_in_thought

Il Principe wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Everyone's taking pay cuts, grow up and get real.

So how many on here have actually had a pay cut over the last year then?

Oh, and yes, I have. About 14% last year, but back up this year (so far)

I haven't. But then I work in a revenue generating role fro a company of 8, so providing I pull my finger out and bring in the bacon I can feel fairly satisfied. We had to make one redundancy in the admin team though and last year was pretty tough. Because we're so small all employees are acutely aware of where we stand financially and expectations alter accordingly. It's not rocket science.

Similar situation here. It was all done in a very frank and open way, and we were given the 'option' of 4-day week or redundancies, so unsurprisingly everyone went for the former. I think small businesses are a bit different though - it's a lot easier to have a frank, direct conversation between director(s) and staff.

It just struck me that it's very easy to say that someone else should 'get real' and accept a pay cut/longer hours/whatever, but a lot harder to go through it yourself.

Think you'll find that Lit did go through redundancy etc anyway...

Sure did, my salary halved from October to November, and has continued at 50% of what I'm used to until now. Fortunately I've managed to get a new job, but although my salary's back where it was, the hours are longer, and the notice period shorter.

Perhaps I'll go on strike.