British Airways ... well actually the Union of Communists

bazbadger

softlad wrote:

bazbadger wrote:

What kind of bike does a 'left leaning commie' ride then? Presume some sort of stabilizer?

on the upside, he would be good at cycle speedway....

point of order though - are there any communists that don't lean to the left..?? I've never met a right-leaning commie......or are they just called fascists...??

Well the thing is, you lean too far to the left and you're in danger of bumping into the person who has leant too far to the right!

bazbadger

fast as fupp wrote:

bazbadger wrote:

What kind of bike does a 'left leaning commie' ride then? Presume some sort of stabilizer?

a wilier!

Aha! Is the 'asymmetrical monocoque rear triangle' left leaning then?

Seanos

bazbadger wrote:

aahhh, straight from the college of pious posts! Or were you actually being funny?

Heh, I was quoting Mark Walker:

http://www.bikeradar.com/forums/viewtop ... t=12704057

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... forum.html

shipley

Mad Roadie wrote:

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

Although your anger is understandable here be a few facts for you to mull over while you wait in the airport attended by able, hard working and diligent British employees. Counter intuitively, given the credit crunch, the amount of days lost through industrial action is decreasing in this country, which hardlt points to a nation in hold to communist tyrrany

BA run the airline as a means of generating income solely for their shareholders, you, to them are simply a nameless, faceless commodity. To the communist staff you seem to deplore you are a name, a face and I would suggest the very reason they joined the service in the first place, to offer assistance and to be of service.

Further more Article 11 of the human rights act states that:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests."

The union members voted for strike action depsite the courts attempts to negate the ballots themsleves.


From this, Article 11, as upheld by the european courts, actually did support the right of collective bargaining, which is all the unions are seeking. The case law, consequently,was extended to cover industrial action, a right which the unions are quite properly exercising.

Rather than being communists, the unions, in representign their members are acting not only within the law but well within their legally defined rights.

Perhaps you need to reconsider your selfish, self centred attitude, for it is that attitude, as evidenced in Willie Walsh that has lead the unions into what their own Unite leader calls unnecessary action.

Toodle pip and up the workers.

"Let no one build walls to divide us,
Walls of hatred nor walls of stone.
Come greet the dawn and stand beside us,
We'll live together or we'll die alone.
In our world poisoned by exploitation,
Those who have taken, now they must give!
And end the vanity of nations,
We've but one Earth on which to live.
So come brothers and sisters,
For the struggle carries on.
The Internationale,
Unites the world in song.
So comrades, come rally,
For this is the time and place!
The international ideal,
Unites the human race."

what utter garbage - caught in a previous age! no wonder the country has gone to the dogs and pays stupid amounts out to sponging people looking for an excuse not to work

Totally agree. Last Century's thinking which destroyed much of the industry in this country. While the sheepskin wearing idiots were striking over here, emerging countries took advantage.

If you don't like your job, take some responsibility for your life and go get another one.

Cressers

So what will you do when you are 'asked' to sacrifice your wages and conditions of service?

shipley

Me ?.... I'd go and get another job...like I've done several times.

If you don't feel that you are being adequately rewarded for your efforts...go somewhere that you will be.

Much preferable to joining forces with some prehistoric angry Scouser who constantly blames 'Management'...whatever that is.

People like that seem to think someone else is responsible for their lives.......

zanes

So, your company is struggling to stay afloat, you were warned before you went on strike last time what would happen if you did strike, and now that's happened you're striking again. Wow, logic. You haz it. :roll:

Cressers

And if there were no other jobs to flee to?

The BA staff are making their stand. Rather than condemn them you should support them.

shipley

"Do you work for British Airways ?"

"No, I just joined to try to drive it into the ground.... I'll know I've been successful when its gone out of business and my job is gone..."

:roll:

bazbadger

It sometimes feels as if the unions are in a bit of a bubble.

When working for someone else ie as an employee, you're largely protected from the pressures of actually running the business. You turn up for work, do a days work and go home.

When running your own business, it can open your eyes as to how hard it is to make it work and how every scrap of business is important. If you have to take a lower wage to keep the business afloat, then thats what you do. As your concern is with making the business work and being successful.

eh

The real problem is that most people couldn't care who is to blame, all they care about is can they fly and that means they won't book BA while strikes threaten. BA have become a dirty word in my office when it comes to booking flights and it is this type of customer that BA relys on, not the European weekend break type travellers.

ilm_zero7

bazbadger wrote:

It sometimes feels as if the unions are in a bit of a bubble.

When working for someone else ie as an employee, you're largely protected from the pressures of actually running the business. You turn up for work, do a days work and go home.

When running your own business, it can open your eyes as to how hard it is to make it work and how every scrap of business is important. If you have to take a lower wage to keep the business afloat, then thats what you do. As your concern is with making the business work and being successful.

too true - as an employer the unions and employment laws make it too slow and difficult to shed staff in a recession - when the market crashes as it has done we have been forced to carry staff for longer than the income we were generating - as a direct result more people's jobs had to go to balance the books

White Horse

The biggest problem is that unions are still acting like they did when there were no employment laws. Now that the battle for employee rights is pretty much over (there is a minimum wage, a requirement for a contract to exist, there are a myriad of procedures that employers must apply for hiring, firing, employing, maintaining H&S etc) unions need to be acting differently.

They should be there to ensure that employment laws are adhered to (and taking cases to the courts where they are not) and campaigning to the government where they think there is a gap. Going on strike when your employer is losing money is only going to end in one way - more job losses than there were going to be when the employer initially announced it.

They should maybe consider naming and shaming bad employers as well rather than this gladatorial nonsense that goes on now.

Why is it always "Big, bad PLC"? That PLC that has not only paid all these people's wages, but has paid corporation tax and its share price growth and dividends have paid people's pensions. Bizarre! Capitalism, with a nod to socialism to ensure that those that can genuinely NOT put their own bread on the table, WORKS!

Unions need to change as businesses have done so in the last 30 yeaars, and in fact will do constantly to stay alive.

fast as fupp

White Horse wrote:

The biggest problem is that unions are still acting like they did when there were no employment laws. Now that the battle for employee rights is pretty much over (there is a minimum wage, a requirement for a contract to exist, there are a myriad of procedures that employers must apply for hiring, firing, employing, maintaining H&S etc) unions need to be acting differently.

They should be there to ensure that employment laws are adhered to (and taking cases to the courts where they are not) and campaigning to the government where they think there is a gap. Going on strike when your employer is losing money is only going to end in one way - more job losses than there were going to be when the employer initially announced it.

They should maybe consider naming and shaming bad employers as well rather than this gladatorial nonsense that goes on now.

Why is it always "Big, bad PLC"? That PLC that has not only paid all these people's wages, but has paid corporation tax and its share price growth and dividends have paid people's pensions. Bizarre! Capitalism, with a nod to socialism to ensure that those that can genuinely NOT put their own bread on the table, WORKS!

Unions need to change as businesses have done so in the last 30 yeaars, and in fact will do constantly to stay alive.

thats just a big load of trumpet- you clearly form your opinions from reading the daily heil or one of murdochs rags

White Horse

fast as fupp wrote:

thats just a big load of trumpet- you clearly form your opinions from reading the daily heil or one of murdochs rags

Nope! Form my own thanks. Don't read newspapers. Haven't got time with 2 kids under 5 in the house. Good of you to add a constructive comment to the debate, though. So, what are unions achieving in this modern world? They were formed out of necessity and gave downtrodden workers a voice many years ago when factories were just hiring and firing willy-nilly. They fought for employment laws. They've got them. Now, 2 strikes have recently been overturned because unions weren't following those very laws.

There is still a requirement for unions, but they are essentially doing what they have always done - and it isn't necessary any more. Companies that scrapped the "Them and us" culture do better now and employ more people on better terms. Unions need to review their purpose and get with the times rather than stocking up on used oil barrels and calling everyone out to wave placards around because the business they work for is trying to make money so they can keep going.

What recent strikes in this country have "worked" to the point where the unions got what they wanted?

MattC59

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

BA run the airline as a means of generating income solely for their shareholders.

.
This is called business, that is the sole reason for their existence, they're not a charity.

Cleat Eastwood wrote:

To the communist staff you seem to deplore you are a name, a face and I would suggest the very reason they joined the service in the first place, to offer assistance and to be of service.

I can only assume that this is a joke ! Don't be fooled, they're doing this out of the kindness of their heart !

fast as fupp

White Horse wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

thats just a big load of trumpet- you clearly form your opinions from reading the daily heil or one of murdochs rags

Nope! Form my own thanks. Don't read newspapers. Haven't got time with 2 kids under 5 in the house. Good of you to add a constructive comment to the debate, though. So, what are unions achieving in this modern world? They were formed out of necessity and gave downtrodden workers a voice many years ago when factories were just hiring and firing willy-nilly. They fought for employment laws. They've got them. Now, 2 strikes have recently been overturned because unions weren't following those very laws.

There is still a requirement for unions, but they are essentially doing what they have always done - and it isn't necessary any more. Companies that scrapped the "Them and us" culture do better now and employ more people on better terms. Unions need to review their purpose and get with the times rather than stocking up on used oil barrels and calling everyone out to wave placards around because the business they work for is trying to make money so they can keep going.

What recent strikes in this country have "worked" to the point where the unions got what they wanted?

tell me then- who negotiates your pay and conditions?

magicrhodes

@fast as fupp you should know that not all BA cabin crew agree with the strike, in fact some of the ones that fly out of Gatwick feel that the Union screwed them over...

Your pro-union bias almost renders your points irrelevent as you seem to hold them as the saviours of the world without any degree of balance. This situation is not just about the evils of big business there is far more to it than that comrade.

To save you the effort of responding I'll just call myself a Daily Heil reader... (which is further from the truth than you can imagine)

White Horse

fast as fupp wrote:

tell me then- who negotiates your pay and conditions?

I'm the MD of a business that is owned by a family-owned (not my family) holding/investment company. So I do, in essence with the shareholders. If I didn't like the conditions I worked in, I would go elsewhere (as I have done on at least 3 occassions). As that probably doesn't answer your question, the staff's wages are agreed on the basis of what we, as a business, are willing and able to pay. If we can't attract the right people, we're probably not paying enough. I want to retain the right staff as experience and low staff turnover is good for the business, however if they all ganged up and demanded this, that and the next thing I would ask them to prove their worth by a market comparison or similar. If they felt they were underpaid but I didn't then they would know what to do. They go out of the door every evening to go home so they shouldn't have trouble finding it one last time.
My point is that they would know that they are not being fleeced but just think that by getting together they can improve their position. Only natural, so I would ask them to prove it. If they could prove it then I may do something about it although in my experience a pay-rise does very little to keep people happy in the long term. There is usually some other under-lying issue that they believe is low pay. I would be more interested as to what that was than just shut them up by handing out a 10% pay-rise because they felt hard done by.
But if they were to do it when we were making losses it would take a few days for me to stop laughing and I would find it hard to take any of them seriously in the future.

I've answered yours, care to answer mine?

What recent strikes in this country have "worked" to the point where the unions got what they wanted?

Tom Butcher

bazbadger wrote:

It sometimes feels as if the unions are in a bit of a bubble.

When working for someone else ie as an employee, you're largely protected from the pressures of actually running the business. You turn up for work, do a days work and go home.

When running your own business, it can open your eyes as to how hard it is to make it work and how every scrap of business is important. If you have to take a lower wage to keep the business afloat, then thats what you do. As your concern is with making the business work and being successful.

Except a lot of people running businesses don't seem to be taking lower wages to keep those businesses afloat - I'm pretty certain that wages in the boardroom of large businesses have risen far faster than shop floor wages in the last couple of decades.

Ultimately though workers are just doing what footballers, doctors and lots of other people do - they are trying to use what leverage they have to maximise their wages. They do it by withdrawing their labour - others do it by using the mobility of the labour market - if you don't have a skill which commands a high price then you use other tactics. To try and moralise about it while not condemning others who try and maximise their wages is wrong.

MattC59

Tom Butcher wrote:

...... if you don't have a skill which commands a high price then you use other tactics.

But if you don't have a skill which commands a high price, why should you be paid one ??

finchy

MattC59 wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

...... if you don't have a skill which commands a high price then you use other tactics.

But if you don't have a skill which commands a high price, why should you be paid one ??

Because you're doing work, which is creating wealth?

Because you're doing something socially useful?

I know, for example, that cleaners are never going to command high wages, unless self-employed, but when you think of the importance of the work that they do, they deserve more than minimum wage.

fast as fupp

so your a boss- that explains everything

to answer your question

im a civil servant in PCS union

weve been conducting a campaign of industrial and legal action against changes to our redundancy terms

these enforced changes were recently declared illegal by the court of appeal so up to now we (PCS) appear to be 'winning' the fact is no one winning as the effect of this turmoil on the workforce has led to total demoralisation of the staff. we have a bullying management structure leading by diktat and playing fast and loose with employment law and a union that is being backed into a corner. willie walsh and his cohorts i imagine are doing the same at BA

they call it 'modernisation' it means working more for less money while the bosses laugh their cocks off.

fast as fupp

magicrhodes wrote:

@fast as fupp you should know that not all BA cabin crew agree with the strike, in fact some of the ones that fly out of Gatwick feel that the Union screwed them over...

Your pro-union bias almost renders your points irrelevent as you seem to hold them as the saviours of the world without any degree of balance. This situation is not just about the evils of big business there is far more to it than that comrade.

To save you the effort of responding I'll just call myself a Daily Heil reader... (which is further from the truth than you can imagine)

of course im biased- im a TU official- i daily see good people treated like sh1t by bosses trying to screw them over

White Horse

johnfinch wrote:

Because you're doing work, which is creating wealth?

Because you're doing something socially useful?

I know, for example, that cleaners are never going to command high wages, unless self-employed, but when you think of the importance of the work that they do, they deserve more than minimum wage.

But that's not how wages are set. Every job should "create wealth" (although add value is a better phrase as a position in a compliance department doesn't create wealth but it adds value because it keeps the company on the right side of the law) otherwise there's no point in having it.

Yes, a cleaner does an important job but just about anyone could do it. If you gave cleaners £20 an hour, then accountants are going to say "hang on a minute - I studied for years to earn £30 an hour - where's the incentive? I want £60 an hour to maintain my status and reflect the additional skills I have!" And your self-employed analogy demonstrates precisely the concept of risk and reward. If someone wants to get off their backside, set up a business, look for customers, purchase equipment, hire people and commit their own resources to making a success of it, then they should be better rewarded than someone who turns up at 6pm on a Thursday to follow a vacuum cleaner around an office then go home.

finchy

White Horse wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Because you're doing work, which is creating wealth?

Because you're doing something socially useful?

I know, for example, that cleaners are never going to command high wages, unless self-employed, but when you think of the importance of the work that they do, they deserve more than minimum wage.

But that's not how wages are set. Every job should "create wealth" (although add value is a better phrase as a position in a compliance department doesn't create wealth but it adds value because it keeps the company on the right side of the law) otherwise there's no point in having it.

Yes, a cleaner does an important job but just about anyone could do it. If you gave cleaners £20 an hour, then accountants are going to say "hang on a minute - I studied for years to earn £30 an hour - where's the incentive? I want £60 an hour to maintain my status and reflect the additional skills I have!" And your self-employed analogy demonstrates precisely the concept of risk and reward. If someone wants to get off their backside, set up a business, look for customers, purchase equipment, hire people and commit their own resources to making a success of it, then they should be better rewarded than someone who turns up at 6pm on a Thursday to follow a vacuum cleaner around an office then go home.

I never said £20/hour. Just better than minimum wage.

White Horse

fast as fupp wrote:

so your a boss- that explains everything

to answer your question

im a civil servant in PCS union

weve been conducting a campaign of industrial and legal action against changes to our redundancy terms

these enforced changes were recently declared illegal by the court of appeal so up to now we (PCS) appear to be 'winning' the fact is no one winning as the effect of this turmoil on the workforce has led to total demoralisation of the staff. we have a bullying management structure leading by diktat and playing fast and loose with employment law and a union that is being backed into a corner. willie walsh and his cohorts i imagine are doing the same at BA

they call it 'modernisation' it means working more for less money while the bosses laugh their cocks off.

You've sort of answered my question with one example. But it answers it to back up my point. A strike hasn't been called, yet the union has won a case in court to demonstrate that the employer cannot change the contractual term they wanted to. Well done, union. That's exactly what they should be doing and not calling strikes so it would seem that your union has modernised to a degree.

To answer your point that "I'm a boss - that explains everything!" I've taken a 40% pay cut along with the rest of the remaining staff in order that there is still a business here when this recession is over. My job is what I DO, not what I AM!

bazbadger

Tom Butcher wrote:

bazbadger wrote:

It sometimes feels as if the unions are in a bit of a bubble.

When working for someone else ie as an employee, you're largely protected from the pressures of actually running the business. You turn up for work, do a days work and go home.

When running your own business, it can open your eyes as to how hard it is to make it work and how every scrap of business is important. If you have to take a lower wage to keep the business afloat, then thats what you do. As your concern is with making the business work and being successful.

Except a lot of people running businesses don't seem to be taking lower wages to keep those businesses afloat - I'm pretty certain that wages in the boardroom of large businesses have risen far faster than shop floor wages in the last couple of decades.

Ultimately though workers are just doing what footballers, doctors and lots of other people do - they are trying to use what leverage they have to maximise their wages. They do it by withdrawing their labour - others do it by using the mobility of the labour market - if you don't have a skill which commands a high price then you use other tactics. To try and moralise about it while not condemning others who try and maximise their wages is wrong.

Really? How do you know that 'a lot of people running businesses don't seem to be taking lower wages to keep those businesses afloat' ? You might be surprised!

Certainly there are no absolutes in this (as far as I know), but my point was essentially about mindset. One is looking out for your own interests (not necessarily wrong) and the other is looking out for the interests of your business as an entity in its own right - which is what a company is. It works both ways.

White Horse

johnfinch wrote:

I never said £20/hour. Just better than minimum wage.

I know, but the point still stands. Pay someone minimum wage plus 10% and then someone else who was on minimum wage plus 10% wants min plus 20% to maintain their staus and the chain continues. Figures were plucked from the air to illustrate a point.

Tom Butcher

White Horse wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Because you're doing work, which is creating wealth?

Because you're doing something socially useful?

I know, for example, that cleaners are never going to command high wages, unless self-employed, but when you think of the importance of the work that they do, they deserve more than minimum wage.

But that's not how wages are set. Every job should "create wealth" (although add value is a better phrase as a position in a compliance department doesn't create wealth but it adds value because it keeps the company on the right side of the law) otherwise there's no point in having it.

Yes, a cleaner does an important job but just about anyone could do it. If you gave cleaners £20 an hour, then accountants are going to say "hang on a minute - I studied for years to earn £30 an hour - where's the incentive? I want £60 an hour to maintain my status and reflect the additional skills I have!" And your self-employed analogy demonstrates precisely the concept of risk and reward. If someone wants to get off their backside, set up a business, look for customers, purchase equipment, hire people and commit their own resources to making a success of it, then they should be better rewarded than someone who turns up at 6pm on a Thursday to follow a vacuum cleaner around an office then go home.

Clearly part of how wages are set is through industrial action. That may not be how you think they should be set - that's a different matter.