British Airways ... well actually the Union of Communists

Tom Butcher

bazbadger wrote:

[
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.

Yes I would be surprised given the figures you hear about boardroom pay vs shopfloor pay. Of course I'm generalising but I think fairly.

I have nothing against people who take risks with their own money setting up a business earning large rewards - I do object to employees of large businesses sitting in the boardroom voting themselves huge pay increases and bonuses and then moralising about it when people on a fraction of their money take collective action to protect their employment wages and conditions.

-edited as I misread what BazB wrote.

magicrhodes

fast as fupp wrote:

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

That is why customers/bystanders generally get pissed off because they look at attitudes like that wonder how there can ever be a negotiated balance... its the selfrighteousness and ego of it all that is the most annoying part. This usually displayed by the TU official's desire to get on TV as much as possible and use his supporters as stepping stones to this end and not for good of the people they claim to represent. Its all about prolonging the 15 minutes of fame.

fast as fupp

White Horse wrote:

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!

we have struck for 3 days up to now but on civil service pay thats not a decision we take lightly.

the fact is when employees resort to strike action theyve been pushed as far as they can go- employers know they are holding all the cards and will avoid dialogue with the unions as in the ba case- it looks like the union there wants to settle but walsh wants to do to to ba what he did to aer lingus.

fair do's for taking a cut yourself though!

fast as fupp

magicrhodes wrote:

fast as fupp wrote:

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

That is why customers/bystanders generally get pissed off because they look at attitudes like that wonder how there can ever be a negotiated balance... its the selfrighteousness of it all that is the most annoying part.

it works both ways- our Commissioner has been quoted as saying "Phuq the unions" thats hardly conducive to dialogue dont you think?

Pross

Cressers wrote:

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

I've been through just that. They couldn't enforce the cuts needed for my company to survive and numerous others were either going bust or making massive redundancies. We were asked to accept a 10% pay cut and removal of the employers 4.5% pension contributions in order to prevent / reduce redundancies and also sacrifice our contracted right to our bonus based on the previous financial year's profit (worth about £2,500 to me). Guess what? Everyone agreed even though it has made life tough for most of us who still have fixed outgoings. This year we have got 1% of our pension back and a very small increase in pay but at the cost of losing private fuel payments to those with company cars (and losing the cars as well in some cases).

Things have been tough but it was essential for the survival of the company and to protect jobs. We had to let about 5 or 6 go but we are now in a position of relative strength when workload picks back up and most of us are still in work when thousands in our sector aren't. Sometimes you have to make sacrifices in the short term for long term gain. The BA cabin crew just don't seem to be able to realise this. The BA pay freeze request would have been welcomed with open arms by us in comparison and the staff reductions would be about half what we have had. Even the rest of BA have accepted their requested changes in T's and C's.

BA also offered the cheap flights back last weekend but this was rejected as they wouldn't reinstate seniority. BA may well not want to resolve the dispute for whatever reason but UNITE don't seem overly keen either.

magicrhodes

Pross wrote:

BA also offered the cheap flights back last weekend but this was rejected as they wouldn't reinstate seniority. BA may well not want to resolve the dispute for whatever reason but UNITE don't seem overly keen either.

The thing is is that this has been sold by the press as them not being allowed to travel cheaply when the seniority problem only occurs when there are 2 people and 1 seat. There are many in BA who are unhappy that BA caved to give them cheap travel back. And no I am not talking about managers

clanton

MattC59 wrote:

I'm with the TalkingTurboTrainer !!

As I understand it, these are the reasons for the strike:

1) BA reduced the number of cabin crew on long-haul flights from 15 to 14.
2) BA introduced a two-year pay freeze from 2010.
3) The airline also proposed new contracts for fresh recruits and newly promoted staff. These included a single on-board management grade, no seniority, promotion on merit.
4) Pay is set at market rate plus 10%.
5) This is a new one this time around; Perks (which, by definition are fringe benefit, ie, not contractual) such as cheap flights have been removed from strikers.

According to a 2009 survey for the Civil Aviation Authority, BA's cabin crew are well paid in industry terms with average earnings of £29,900 a year, including bonuses and allowances, compared with £14,400 at Virgin Atlantic.

Now, in answer to the above:
1) We're in a recession, most companies are making redundancies, why do BA cabin crew think they're special and immune from this ? My company has certainly done so !
2) We're in a recession, most companies are making pay freezes why do BA cabin crew think they're special and immune from this ? I'm currently on a pay freeze.
3) No disrespect to anyone, but do they REALLY need a management and seniority structure to act as airborn housekeepers ?
4) New recruits get a better rate of pay, by 10% than the market rate. I guess that if they don't like that, they can go and work else where. Essentially, the strikers are striking about something that doesn't effect them !
5) Perfectly reasonable I think, why should BA continue to give benefits and subsidise those who are causing damage to the company.

Bottom line............... This is a strike because the union thinks it's members should be immune from the recession, whilst the rest of us struggle through it.

IT'S A RECESSION YOU MORONS, WE'RE ALL EFFECTED. IF YOU CONTINUE TO STRIKE, YOU COST BA MORE MONEY, PUTTING THEIR FUTURE AT RISK. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO STRIKE ABOUT THEN ?

There have been cuts and pay freezes at the company I work for, should I go on strike ? Oh, hang on, I'd be sacked if I did.

Monkeys !!!

++ LOTS

Cleat Eastwood

Union action that has been successful

The Public and Commercial Services union = major legal victory against government plans to drastically cut civil service redundancy payments.

"In what is a dramatic win for the union’s 270,000 public sector members, the judgement
quashes a revised scheme that the government had sought to impose from 1 April. It means the next government, when it is established, must reopen negotiations with the union if it is to agree a new arrangement that protects existing members’ rights."


The RMT strike threat a couple of weeks ago brought negotiations through acas to a
successful conclusion for all parties.

Usdaw has won its claim for a Protective Award at an Employment Tribunal against Dairy Farmers of Britain after receivers, PricewaterhouseCoopers, closed down three dairies in June 2009 without consultation, making hundreds of staff redundant.

landmark case securing substantial redundancy and compensation packages for long serving Unwins staff who faced financial ruin after the off–licence chain went into administration. USDAW


There seems to be some badly misinformed media led anti union arguments here. So, mister chairman a point of order.

1. We are along with other major economies technically out of recession. We are, however, still in the eddies and swirls of a global financial crisis.

2. The problems at BA were not caused by the unions but by the actions of the BA management, no doubt in all honestly believing they were dealing with the global crisis, in withdrawing agreements deemed acceptable by both parties, then inexplicably removed from negotiations.

3. The issue it seems to me revolves around profitability and the needs for companies and employees (at all levels) to work through a crisis not of this countries making.

Some forum members seem to believe that since their finacial arrangements could be
negotiated through individual terms and conditions that this approach should be applied
universally. This is a shockingly narrow minded and typically conservative(with a small c) view of labour relations.

Your work conditions are defined by the global flux of the dollar, since it is the dollar
that is the currency of global reserve. If there i sno money to pay you, you dont have
ajob. Indeed many large multi nationals have specialised departments solely for investing
their profits in the finacial markets. This is why the view that capitalism commodifies us
as beings can be stated, for the businesses dont even bother to pay dividends to their own shareholders.

If thats what you believe in then thats what you belive in its neither good nor bad, but its
hardly conducive to a society based on any semblence of social justice.

And that for me is the crux of this post. If the livlihoods of workers are based on the
fluctuations of a corrupt capitalist financial markets then the workers, of any class, need
representation.

Remember, this current financial crisis has been created by 30 years of increasingly low profitability. Thats is to say, the return on capital ( as teh finacial times called it) has
been falling to such an extent that what would take 5 years to see a doubling of investment, now takes 20 years. (source=financial times)

That is the capitalism that many of the forum members seem to be arguing for. Incredible.
I'm guessing that I'm in a minority on the forum in having read Marx so forgive me little
detour in to marxist theory. Marx said that a decline in the return on capital ( he called it rate of profit)is central to the crisis of capitalism. He suggested that to reverse the decline there needs to be a "annihilation of a great part of the capital". What a terrifying word, annihilation. That cyclistas not only means annihilation of monetary assets, its means annihilation of you.

Not only can assets be discarded and re-bought but so can individuals. This means depressed wages, unemployment and the inevitable social decay and need for scapegoats.

In the words of Pastor Niemoller...

"They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."


Oh and Birkenheads finest Half Man Half Biscuit also added..


" Then they came for Rod Hull...
And I said he's over there"


Oh by the way in case anyone thinks this is just a biased misty eyed leftist speaking. I run my own business and since the banks have refused to invest we'll probably be closing this year. Could I lay off my employees and go on a bit longer, I could but I've been on the dole and far from being a scroungers dream, its a hellish thing, so dispiriting, not something I could willingly place on the shoulders of my friends.

And once again I ask; why is the protection of workers rights seen as a prehistoric practice:

Equal Pay Act 1970,
Sex Discrimination Act 1975,
Race Relations Act 1976,
Disability Discrimination Act 1995
Equality Act 2010

By what timescale is that prehistoric? Oh and each and every one supported by if not sponsored by trade unions.

Right I'm off to watch the Giro. Whats happened to the weather?

White Horse

I didn't ask if "Union action" was successful. I asked about when STRIKING was successful. Of course union action has been "successful" - that's what they are for.

2 very different things as I have already said. Unions have a place and a purpose. SOME union leaders still believe their purpose is being fulfilled when, and only when, they see hoards of placard-waving people demanding more money and dressing up in pig costumes.

I am delighted that unions appear to be realising that their purpose is to hold employers to account and to campaign for better workers' rights. But bitching and moaning that a loss making company is not paying them enough (either directly or through benefits or by having to make redundancies) and sulking when the management of the company (appointed by the shareholders to ensure that all the money they have invested is not wasted) want to do something about it to try and stem the losses to the point where it seems to be "If we're going down, we're taking you with us!" is just ridiculous.

STRIKING invariably does not work. It only makes the situation worse as the damage to the employer is even larger.

ilm_zero7

White Horse wrote:

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!

how right that is - we are debating asking staff to take a 10% pay cut to balance the books, that is after we have been forced to re-tender existing awarded contracts, and seen our earnings fall 35% or more and re-invested back into the business

what often isnt realised is the extent to which everything employers own is invested into and at risk for the business

so what would the answer be when you offered an extra 15% a year, if the employees invested the full value of their homes to make a business cash +?

Anonymous

What a scrap, glad Ive been off for a few days.

Mad Roadie

dmclite
go on then - you must be refreshed - its a capitalist vs communists battle

Anonymous

Mad Roadie wrote:

dmclite
go on then - you must be refreshed - its a capitalist vs communists battle

Who spilt my pint ?

Mad Roadie

dmclite wrote:

Mad Roadie wrote:

dmclite
go on then - you must be refreshed - its a capitalist vs communists battle

Who spilt my pint ?

depends if you bought it with your strike pay or fat cat's bonus!

simonaspinall

If the unite union's demands are successful, what do they expect to happen to the company and it's ability to compete?

Frank the tank

Striking never solves anything (negotiation solves the problem) Strike action is a last resort but what it does do is make both sides focus. While ever output carries on going out the door management will carry on pulling the wool as long as they can.

Stevo_666

Not sure the strike is really that effective in disrupting customers - I have just arrived back from a work trip this morning on BA and everything was functioning perfectly. BA confirmed the flight was running several days in advance, the cabin staff gave top notch service: the plane even arrived and left ahead of schedule, which doesn't happen normally

daviesee

Stevo 666 wrote:

Not sure the strike is really that effective in disrupting customers - I have just arrived back from a work trip this morning on BA and everything was functioning perfectly. BA confirmed the flight was running several days in advance, the cabin staff gave top notch service: the plane even arrived and left ahead of schedule, which doesn't happen normally

"Scab" staff or temps?

If temps it tells you that the strikers don't have any special skills and may want to re-think their position.

TheTalkingTurboTrainer

Blaaardy Hell!!

You make a comment or two about being angry with a union's airline, turn your back for a few days and look at what happens!! :shock:

If it rains here this weekend making rides in Surrey even LESS like riding in the Pyrenees, I shall pick up my toys and put them back in my pram so that I can throw them out again!!!

(and to the clown who takes things so literally, I KNOW the Etape isn't a race, 'sorry' for being so inaccurate as to offend you. That being said, I'm pretty sure there is a ceremony for the place getters. Oh and if you don't do it within the timeframe you're out ... therefore isn't that a race against the clock? But whatever, it's all hairsplitting.) :roll:

Stevo_666

daviesee wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Not sure the strike is really that effective in disrupting customers - I have just arrived back from a work trip this morning on BA and everything was functioning perfectly. BA confirmed the flight was running several days in advance, the cabin staff gave top notch service: the plane even arrived and left ahead of schedule, which doesn't happen normally

"Scab" staff or temps?

If temps it tells you that the strikers don't have any special skills and may want to re-think their position.

These were regular BA staff.

markos1963

Well, I've reading through 7 pages of comments before I put my thoughts on here just to make sure I had a full understanding of peoples views.

I'm sure the BA strikers aren't doing anything personal against the OP no person in the service sector wants to upset their customers. They realise as much as the management the risk they take by coming out on strike. There comes a point though when enough is enough and indeed some of the BA workers know that if they don't take action they'll be without a job regardless of whether the company survives or not(nothing to lose you see)

I assume the Union bashers on here have had a holiday or a day off or equal pay compared to another sex/race. I also assume they've had the choice of working less than 100 hours a week or they've hadn't needed to send their 7yo child to work in a mine or up a chimney. Do these people all go to a private hospitol or have they used the NHS at all? I bet these Union bashers haven't written to the Unions to thank them for all these benefits that they have been involved in over the last 150 or so years.

Most Union officials AREN'T power crazed publicity seeking commies, most of them are ordinary workers elected by their workmates to represent them on daily mundane matters. A Union official will spend most of the time TALKING to management about health and safety matters, how to improve service/productivity/ rostering and sitting in on disciplinary hearings. All of this is done freely without pay and in their own time.

Capitalism is fine if it benefits everybody in a sociaty but it doesn't does it? Lets be honest here, is a managing director worth £100k a year to you when you've been knocked off your bike and what you really want is a £20k a year paramedic to stop your head injury from killing you. Why do we always think that if its bad we should just leave a job, I didn't think that was the British way. People should stand up and try to change things from the inside otherwise the cr*p employers will carry on exploiting their best asset.

Lets not forget this current global econimic crisis wasn't caused by the Unions was it, it was caused by greedy capitalist bankers and politians co*king up. Its the workers and tax payers who are paying for it now and rightly they have the choice to accept it or not.

Pross

Don't think most comments have bashed Unions as such, it's the strikes they are bashing. As someone asked when was the last time a strike achieved its aim? I suspect that, in most cases, the eventual face saving agreements amount to pretty much what was originally on offer with Unions pointing to regaining certain rights which were only lost as a result of the strike action (such as the cheap flights in this example) to show what a good job they've done. As another poster said on several occassions, Unions do their job best when working with employers or government to make real, long term improvements. However, there are still some Unions out there who prefer to be more militant and seem to feel that without overseeing strike action they aren't doing their jobs. UNITE comes across as one of these.

markos1963

The degree of militancy of a Union is often determined by the attitude of management towards its workers. If a company is more proactive and inclusive towards its workers then the need for confrontation is lessened. Also the power of the workers can have a calming effect on relations as long as the workers are responsible. ie airline pilots are very rarely on strike as the companies cannot replace them quickly so they tend to negotiate more readily with them rather than cabin staff. To a certain extent its the same in my job(train driver) we very rarely came out on strike and we don't want to due to the disruption it causes.

simonaspinall

No-one's knocking the concept of a union standing up for the workers - What is happening at BA is that the staff who are not exactly down-trodden are striking....clearly oblivious that the rival competition (such as Virgin) are out-gunning them on every strategic front and must be loving all of this press coverage.

Willie Walsh came into a financial timebomb and is trying to steer it towards a lower cost base so the company can compete in the long-term.

The unions are of course doing the duty of trying to get the best deal for their members but what do they expect to happen if they succeed? BA will still have high costs, alienated customers and be losing competitiveness against other airlines.

The unions are keeping this going - The perks, pensions and higher wages are good for the workers...and terrible for the company long-term. The only way to correct this is by charging higher ticket prices but many of their customers are leaving the loyalty and business schemes as they won't risk flying with them.

I'm not sure what my point is now but the balance bewteen fair working conditions and the company's flexibility and long term survival doesn't seem particularly healthy.

This is maybe a bad employment strategy created over 20 years+ of being too generous and it's come back to bite them but the union needs to realise that BA are in competition with other airlines and not doing a very good job of defending market share and competitiveness.

markos1963

BA's crew costs might seem high in comparison to Virgins but I can't believe the Virgin figure of sub £15k is right, thats almost minimum wage and I can't think that their workers living in the south of england would work for that. I would like to see a real figure not one printed in the Daily Mail

daviesee

markos1963 wrote:

BA's crew costs might seem high in comparison to Virgins but I can't believe the Virgin figure of sub £15k is right, thats almost minimum wage and I can't think that their workers living in the south of england would work for that. I would like to see a real figure not one printed in the Daily Mail

I tried to find a source from the horses mouth but failed.

Google came up with a personnel body report which may be neutral and no axe to grind. Maybe.

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/ ... -2009.html

guilliano

Maybe the union would be more willing to negotiate if the upper chain of management weren't being paid a shedload of cash and bonuses every month? As with any company, it's the ones that are relied upon to cement the reputation of the company (the face of the company, or the skivvies, depending on your outlook) who get paid the least, yet these are the people who the customers see and the ones that make them come back. I don't shop at Tesco because the CEO is doing a good job. I don't bank with Lloyds TSB because the board or the share brokers are nice friendly people. The people that encourage loyalty or custom are the ones that get paid naff all money every month and they (in general) deserve better pay.

White Horse

guilliano wrote:

. I don't shop at Tesco because the CEO is doing a good job. I don't bank with Lloyds TSB because the board or the share brokers are nice friendly people. The people that encourage loyalty or custom are the ones that get paid naff all money every month and they (in general) deserve better pay.

But, equally. Investors don't put money in to these companies because Madge on the checkouts in Swindon has always got a nice smile on her face and a chirpy manner.

Running a Plc looks so easy from the outside doesn't it? It's a balancing act. Not only have you got to keep the owners happy by telling them they're going to make loads of money because you've got a handle on cost control, you've got to keep the staff happy by telling them they are valued and not flogging them to death and keep the customers happy by giving them low cost, high quality goods and services. You've also got to keep suppliers happy and ensure that any relevant laws are being adhered to. Now, the CEO doesn't do all this themself obviously. The CEO is like the conductor in an orchestra. The musicians are making the noise and if you took the conductor away they'd sound good for a short period of time but after a while, it would all start to fall apart and sound dreadful eventually resulting in arguments breaking out and someone storming off to do their own thing.

MattC59

markos1963 wrote:

I would like to see a real figure not one printed in the Daily Mail

Don't you just love ill informed comments ?

snailracer

TheTalkingTurboTrainer wrote:

Thanks you bunch of Communist tw@ts! :evil:

All I wanted to do was go to Toulouse to train for the Etape over the bank holiday weekend and what did you have to do?

go on strike again you lazy commie Pricks so the airline cancelled the flight! :evil:

All you are doing is pushing BA further into the red then what are you going to do? Protest that you don't have a job?!!?!?

<insert a long string of expletives here>

The OP's ire is misplaced. He paid BA - a legal entity, a company - to fly him, not the union. BA's job is, amongst other things, to manage employees. Managing employees is not easy, but that's why Willy Walsh is the boss and is paid big bucks.

If you can blame the unions, why not blame BA shareholders, who actually own the airline? Obviously that would be preposterous, but the union has no more obligation to the OP, than BA's shareholders, which is none.