Forum home Road cycling forum The bottom bracket

BA Strike - Again

2»

Posts

  • andyrmandyrm Posts: 550
    morstar wrote:

    I think the Scargill mentality of the unions is totally out of step with reality but at least we've found our Maggie to take them on.

    Rolling 6 month contracts? Staff shouldn't hold businesses to ransom without strong justification but at what point do staff lose all rights as your model would have. It's a co-dependent relationship, one is nothing without the other.

    I'd suggest the staff need reminding of the workings of supply and demand and that they absolutely are very easily replaceable with staff just as capable if not more capable, just as committed if not more committed, and just as cheap if not cheaper. As I say, I have first hand experience of working for an airline down the ladder from BA and the aspiration is definitely there.
  • Jez monJez mon Posts: 3,809
    andyrm wrote:
    I've got zero sympathy for the cabin crew. After uni 12 years ago, I fancied a change and spent a couple of years working for Monarch as cabin crew - BA were paid far better than us and had better perks of the job, they still do.

    While I was in the industry, the trouble making union (that has since been swallowed up into Unison) was just making its presence felt - even back then, the agenda was all about militance and intimidation of the company.

    Knowing that there is a huge backlog of good available staff from other airlines and out of the pre-qualification courses, I think BA should be looking to their corporate legal team, rewriting all contracts into rolling 6 month contracts with provisos that industrial action will result in immediate termination. There's plenty of people to replace them if they want to play at Scargill.

    What astounds me is that everyone knows BA has been loss making - they need their staff to tighten their belts to ensure survival of their employer, and yet this union has managed to get them to behave like this without any consideration of the commercial implications of their actions.

    BA has been on my "no fly" list for the last 12 months because of this - I know many others also have this view as well, so it's likely only to be a matter of time before it goes pop.

    I'm not guardian reading leftie, but even ignoring the legal issues, rolling six month contracts would be a bad idea.

    The cabin crew are the face of the airline at the end of the day and if you want to market yourself as the worlds favoured airline, having happy cabin crew, who are committed to the company is pretty much a must have. Rolling six month contracts do exactly the opposite.
    You live and learn. At any rate, you live
  • bearfraserbearfraser Posts: 435
    and just how are the "Royal" newly-weds going to get away on honeymoon?????
  • andyrmandyrm Posts: 550
    Jez mon wrote:
    I'm not guardian reading leftie, but even ignoring the legal issues, rolling six month contracts would be a bad idea.

    The cabin crew are the face of the airline at the end of the day and if you want to market yourself as the worlds favoured airline, having happy cabin crew, who are committed to the company is pretty much a must have. Rolling six month contracts do exactly the opposite.

    But at the same time, it's totally wrong to have a militant workforce (who are very easily replaceable, potentially at a cost saving without loss of performance) dictating and holding their employer to ransom.

    The cabin crew and their union need to recognise the employer is making a heavy loss in a shrinking industry with ever-increasing overheads, and that this action only serves to worsen the situation.

    How can they possibly expect to have more, or even maintain the status quo if they are part of the problem?
  • markos1963markos1963 Posts: 3,724
    andyrm wrote:
    Jez mon wrote:
    I'm not guardian reading leftie, but even ignoring the legal issues, rolling six month contracts would be a bad idea.

    The cabin crew are the face of the airline at the end of the day and if you want to market yourself as the worlds favoured airline, having happy cabin crew, who are committed to the company is pretty much a must have. Rolling six month contracts do exactly the opposite.

    But at the same time, it's totally wrong to have a militant workforce (who are very easily replaceable, potentially at a cost saving without loss of performance) dictating and holding their employer to ransom.

    The cabin crew and their union need to recognise the employer is making a heavy loss in a shrinking industry with ever-increasing overheads, and that this action only serves to worsen the situation.

    How can they possibly expect to have more, or even maintain the status quo if they are part of the problem?


    Work forces don't set out to be militant. Industrial unrest is a sign of other problems within a business. It usually shows a workforce who are excluded from the decision making, who feel that they and not the management are being made to pay for corperate mistakes and any changes that are made are dictated to them without consultation. Perhaps if BA management had put a better,clearer and more fairer proposal to the staff this dispute might not have happened.
    I don't necessarly agree with the BA staff but they have made their choice democratically and in line with the laws of this country(introduced by Mrs Thatcher) No worker goes on strike lightly, remember they don't get paid when on strike and by definition they have far more to lose than BA management. If it's worth it only they will be able to tell.
  • andyrmandyrm Posts: 550
    So why is it then that there can be a cross-company agreement in a major British motor manufacturer to all take a 10% pay CUT (not freeze, an actual cut) to reduce the odds of redundancies or business failure, yet the staff at BA who all know about the £500M+ loss refuse to take a freeze and a reduction on some of their perks?

    We never see union-driven workforces behaving in a sensible and rational way with consideration to the needs of the business. It's always a petulant and demanding approach - "give us what we want or we will cripple your operations". That's tantamount to blackmail - both to shareholders and passengers.

    If they hate their job so much, and clearly can afford not to earn as they are striking, maybe they should leave?
  • markos1963markos1963 Posts: 3,724
    andyrm wrote:
    So why is it then that there can be a cross-company agreement in a major British motor manufacturer to all take a 10% pay CUT (not freeze, an actual cut) to reduce the odds of redundancies or business failure, yet the staff at BA who all know about the £500M+ loss refuse to take a freeze and a reduction on some of their perks?

    We never see union-driven workforces behaving in a sensible and rational way with consideration to the needs of the business. It's always a petulant and demanding approach - "give us what we want or we will cripple your operations". That's tantamount to blackmail - both to shareholders and passengers.

    If they hate their job so much, and clearly can afford not to earn as they are striking, maybe they should leave?

    Are you saying the motor manufacturer is a non Union company? I doubt it very much and refer you to my point, if a case is put across properly and with all parties involved in the process then it's unlikely to end up in a dispute.
  • andyrmandyrm Posts: 550
    markos1963 wrote:
    Are you saying the motor manufacturer is a non Union company? I doubt it very much and refer you to my point, if a case is put across properly and with all parties involved in the process then it's unlikely to end up in a dispute.

    Interestingly enough the company in question actually doesn't have a high level of union activity, hence the fact there was non of the usual petulant throwing of toys out of the pram.

    As I have previously posted, I have direct first hand experience of the union that has caused this whole messy BA affair - their intentions from the very outset of the union (when it was BCCA, before merging into Unison) were to be a firebrand 80's style union, not one with genuine wish to work in their members' best interests.

    Maybe it's best that BA does go under. Write down all the debts, lay off all the staff, let someone buy the brand rights and start again, selecting people on merit and commitment to the cause and leaving all those who want to play at miners to sign on.
  • markos1963 wrote:
    Agree, getting fed up of having to explain to all the Daily Mail readers in here that reason they can go on holiday in the first place is down to the very Unions they are bashing.

    Don't read the fail and never been a member of a union. I got to where I am through hard work instead!
    Oh, and make a point of never using BA, so no disappointments... simples


    thjey aint mutually exclusive.

    I got to where i am today by hard work , being good at what i do and i am still a member of the union for my industry. well actually all industry now we let the T&G merge :shakes head in disbeleif: sad to see that its the union i belong to thats called the strike thats UNITE formerly Amicus not UNISON which was CoSHE and NUPE.
    Veni Vidi cyclo I came I saw I cycled
    exercise.png
Sign In or Register to comment.