OT - UNITE/BA

hmbadger

I think we're getting to the basics of the matter and hence not a lot of point in continuing.

I think the travel perks associated with the job are a bit more than a nice to have - I'd be pretty sure that they were regarded as an integral part of the rewards for the job. I understand that formally that isn't the case.

And therefore using withdrawal of the perk as a means of punishing those who have taken action is clearly an anti trade union approach.

wrt "surely a company can reward those who support its ideals and views" - would you say that the company should be able to provide these perks only to non union members?

As I say you either support the principles behind trade unionism or you don't. I do, and I suspect you don't.

Now, nearly time for beer......



[/i]

Greg T

hmbadger wrote:

But I guess it all boils down to whether you agree with the principles behind trade unionism, and the right to strike.

No it doesn't.

No-one says they shouldn't be allowed to strike but there's a lot of questioning about if it's justified or a good idea....

Turkeys are really voting for Christmas.

il_principe

Thing is, when BA finally slides under, those 'principles' aren't gonna put much food on the table are they.

W1

Greg T wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

But I guess it all boils down to whether you agree with the principles behind trade unionism, and the right to strike.

No it doesn't.

No-one says they shouldn't be allowed to strike but there's a lot of questioning about if it's justified or a good idea....

Turkeys are really voting for Christmas.

+1 - this is nothing about protecting workers rights, and all about greed, ignorance and blackmail.

spen666

hmbadger wrote:

I think we're getting to the basics of the matter and hence not a lot of point in continuing.

I think the travel perks associated with the job are a bit more than a nice to have - I'd be pretty sure that they were regarded as an integral part of the rewards for the job. I understand that formally that isn't the case.

And therefore using withdrawal of the perk as a means of punishing those who have taken action is clearly an anti trade union approach.

wrt "surely a company can reward those who support its ideals and views" - would you say that the company should be able to provide these perks only to non union members?

As I say you either support the principles behind trade unionism or you don't. I do, and I suspect you don't.

Now, nearly time for beer......



[/i]

Interesting how you can be soo completely wrong.

I am a card carrying trade union member, so I suspect you may be 100% wrong in suggesting I do not support trade union principles.

Never mind


BA in withdrawing the discretionary reward are not acting in an anti trade union manner at all. They are acting in a manner so as not to reward those who do not work towards the company's aims.

If they happen to be trade union members, that is co-incidental. There are thousands of BA staff who are trade union members who still get travel perks. That is because they did not strike.

Thus its clear that the move to withdraw the travel perk is not anti union at all, but is anti those who work against the best interests of the country.

But hey, lets not let the truth get in the way of a myopic rant

hmbadger

Greg T wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

But if you have a lot, and you are supporting sacking striking workers and replacing them with people who will work for less, then you can expect some stick.

I'm not suggesting sacking anyone.

Just suggesting that sriking is a bad idea when your firm is going down the pan - would you disagree?

Yes, I would, whenever the strike is now about basic union rights. Shame that it is necessary, due to the intransigent attitude of the management. Christ, even Norman Tebiit was on the radio earlier saying that the strike wouldn;t be happening under Lord King - effectively blaming the management!

Greg T

hmbadger wrote:

Yes, I would, whenever the strike is now about basic union rights.!

Travel perks are not basic human rights....

W1

Greg T wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

Yes, I would, whenever the strike is now about basic union rights.!

Travel perks are not basic human rights....

Or even basic union rights.

As you accept, they're not formally part of the renumeration, they are a discretionary perk and more to the point it was known that the perk would be withdrawn from strikers. So what is the problem?

greg66_tri_v2.0

hmbadger wrote:

Greg T wrote:

Just suggesting that sriking is a bad idea when your firm is going down the pan - would you disagree?

Yes, I would, whenever the strike is now about basic union rights.

"Basic union rights" require a union, which needs a workforce, which needs an employer. Which employer is, one might think, best kept therefore from going down the pan.

Ever read the story of the Golden Goose?

hmbadger

spen666 wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

I think we're getting to the basics of the matter and hence not a lot of point in continuing.

I think the travel perks associated with the job are a bit more than a nice to have - I'd be pretty sure that they were regarded as an integral part of the rewards for the job. I understand that formally that isn't the case.

And therefore using withdrawal of the perk as a means of punishing those who have taken action is clearly an anti trade union approach.

wrt "surely a company can reward those who support its ideals and views" - would you say that the company should be able to provide these perks only to non union members?

As I say you either support the principles behind trade unionism or you don't. I do, and I suspect you don't.

Now, nearly time for beer......



[/i]

Interesting how you can be soo completely wrong.

I am a card carrying trade union member, so I suspect you may be 100% wrong in suggesting I do not support trade union principles.

Never mind


BA in withdrawing the discretionary reward are not acting in an anti trade union manner at all. They are acting in a manner so as not to reward those who do not work towards the company's aims.

If they happen to be trade union members, that is co-incidental. There are thousands of BA staff who are trade union members who still get travel perks. That is because they did not strike.

Thus its clear that the move to withdraw the travel perk is not anti union at all, but is anti those who work against the best interests of the country.

But hey, lets not let the truth get in the way of a myopic rant

Interesting how you can be sooo patronising.

Your line of reasoning is tortuous - you can't see the wood for the trees. You talk like it is mere coincidence that the strikers were trade union members! BA are doing all they can to break the union.

And do you really mean ".. against the best interests of the country."? Country as opposed to company? Are we back to "the enemy within" :roll:

hmbadger

Greg T wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

Yes, I would, whenever the strike is now about basic union rights.!

Travel perks are not basic human rights....

I didn't say anything about human rights - union rights.

Greg T

hmbadger wrote:

Greg T wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

Yes, I would, whenever the strike is now about basic union rights.!

Travel perks are not basic human rights....

I didn't say anything about human rights - union rights.

yeah - I read it too fast - spat coffee all over the pace and made an idiot of myself...

Arf arf

spen666

hmbadger wrote:

spen666 wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

I think we're getting to the basics of the matter and hence not a lot of point in continuing.

I think the travel perks associated with the job are a bit more than a nice to have - I'd be pretty sure that they were regarded as an integral part of the rewards for the job. I understand that formally that isn't the case.

And therefore using withdrawal of the perk as a means of punishing those who have taken action is clearly an anti trade union approach.

wrt "surely a company can reward those who support its ideals and views" - would you say that the company should be able to provide these perks only to non union members?

As I say you either support the principles behind trade unionism or you don't. I do, and I suspect you don't.

Now, nearly time for beer......



[/i]

Interesting how you can be soo completely wrong.

I am a card carrying trade union member, so I suspect you may be 100% wrong in suggesting I do not support trade union principles.

Never mind


BA in withdrawing the discretionary reward are not acting in an anti trade union manner at all. They are acting in a manner so as not to reward those who do not work towards the company's aims.

If they happen to be trade union members, that is co-incidental. There are thousands of BA staff who are trade union members who still get travel perks. That is because they did not strike.

Thus its clear that the move to withdraw the travel perk is not anti union at all, but is anti those who work against the best interests of the country.

But hey, lets not let the truth get in the way of a myopic rant

Interesting how you can be sooo patronising.

Your line of reasoning is tortuous - you can't see the wood for the trees. You talk like it is mere coincidence that the strikers were trade union members! BA are doing all they can to break the union.

And do you really mean ".. against the best interests of the country."? Country as opposed to company? Are we back to "the enemy within" :roll:

Ermmmm Wood and trees?


What about the vast majority of unite members ( and members of other unions) who have not had their perks removed?

clearly if it was an anti union measure, then they would have lost their perks as well.


The fact they have not shows that the action was not taken because the losers were union members, but was for (an)other reason(s). The reason being because they went on strike.


Simple looking at the matter clearly shows the action was for reasons other than being an anti union measure

further

Lit said:

Attitudes like what?!

They are striking about the retribution they got from striking last time! That sound like a great attitude to me. Part of me wants the whole airline to go up in smoke, then they'll be sorry.

No union could sit back and see members punished for taking part in legal strike action and BA knows this. Management only has itself to blame for this one.



Couldn't agree more with hmbadger's contributions to the thread.

ketsbaia

Greg T wrote:

hmbadger wrote:

But if you have a lot, and you are supporting sacking striking workers and replacing them with people who will work for less, then you can expect some stick.

I'm not suggesting sacking anyone.

Just suggesting that sriking is a bad idea when your firm is going down the pan - woukld you disagree?

Would you agree spunking hundreds of millions of pounds fighting a strike instead of sitting down and talking to the union when your firm is going down the pan is a bad idea as well?

W1

further wrote:

Lit said:

Attitudes like what?!

They are striking about the retribution they got from striking last time! That sound like a great attitude to me. Part of me wants the whole airline to go up in smoke, then they'll be sorry.

No union could sit back and see members punished for taking part in legal strike action and BA knows this. Management only has itself to blame for this one.



Couldn't agree more with hmbadger's contributions to the thread.

Couldn't agree less.

It's a great example of why unions have run their course in this country - or at least, in their current militant style.

They aren't protecting the general workers' rights, they're trying to stiff a company via blackmail due to their own greed and self importance. All the unions will be out in force when the government cuts come through too, fighting for their "rights" without realising that the gravy train can't go on forever and that everyone will have to pull their weight. But the "I'll make sure I'm OK and stuff everyone" attitude has won them no favours here.

DonDaddyD

Ooo class and salary war.

I wish I was here earlier to take part in that!

I work in the public sector have done all my career. I earn a fair wack. My friends would claim to be middle class. Me? Not so much, though on paper I am and in terms of comparative earnings I do all right.

I think the strikes are a nusiance. If I was in the situation I don't know what I would do. However, my knowledge of business and management tells me that if staff are almost immediatly striking to what they feel as being treated unfairly then perhaps the top brass aren't managing or listening to their staff properly and should themselves be called into question.

You should never need to strike over something like this. It does seem BA is targeting on a certain group of staff and that could be argued as bullying. They should have simply removed on-contractual benefits from all staff after the last strikes, that would have taught them.

Greg T

ketsbaia wrote:

Would you agree spunking hundreds of millions of pounds fighting a strike instead of sitting down and talking to the union when your firm is going down the pan is a bad idea as well?

You have to control your costs

So yes.

When revenue is tanking and cost base is stagnant if not growing then you have no choice..

The market will kill you if you don't.

tailwindhome

spen666 wrote:

The fact they have not shows that the action was not taken because the losers were union members, but was for (an)other reason(s). The reason being because they went on strike.

Or as L-i-t put it "Retribution"

lost_in_thought

TailWindHome wrote:

spen666 wrote:

The fact they have not shows that the action was not taken because the losers were union members, but was for (an)other reason(s). The reason being because they went on strike.

Or as L-i-t put it "Retribution"

Heehee... I can't take credit for that, the post I responded to called it retribution, and I done copied it.

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

<snip>

You should never need to strike over something like this. It does seem BA is targeting on a certain group of staff and that could be argued as bullying. They should have simply removed on-contractual benefits from all staff after the last strikes, that would have taught them.

Yeah, punish the people who didn't strike. That sounds super-fair to me!

The strikers were forewarned.

daviesee

The way I see it (probably wrong but I won't let that stop me) is that the management and the union are going to kill off BA for what?

The management show they won't be bullied and the union gain some perks for some members? Whoop de do! Everyone will be losers in this one; management, workers and customers.

Who is going to buy a flight with BA now? Massive losses and no customers = job loses.

PS:- The perks are at the company's discretion and are not contractual. How can you strike to keep something that is not in your contract?