Viewing 11 posts - 161 through 171 (of 171 total)
  • BAA to strike over a measly 1% pay rise..
  • Junkyard
    Free Member

    yes it i slegal if done properly but can also be constructive dismissal depending on circumstances.
    Essentially some Unions are poor or some reps are as are some employers. Many employers would pay there staff eff all if they could get away with it. The sensible position is a reasonable balance to stop employers taking the pi55 and also to stop Unions downing tools beacuse they dont like the colour of the new chairs. There are aggressive antagonistic confrontational asshats on both sides. Too think only one side is wrong all the time is silly whichever side you blame.
    Certainly the Unions are responsible for the vast majority of improvements in working conditions over time by standing up and challenging the employers.

    Edric64
    Free Member

    Try being self employed many of us have cut our rates over the last couple of years by a lot more than 1% .I have quoted a third less on some and other work is at the same rate as 11 years ago !

    NZCol
    Full Member

    This irritates me a lot.
    Many (most?) people have spent the last 18months working to either prop up business, protect their own jobs, taking pay cuts/reduced hours etc Then you get sh1t like this. Grow up, look around you and behave like adults.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    El-bent
    Free Member

    Unions r saracin

    But they were good enough to fight for the terms and conditions which someone like you enjoys today. I suppose you are too stupid to realise that though.

    Like lambs to the slaughter…….meek, silent, and without any resistance.

    How terribly British.

    I find it amazing that so many people are willing to go along with this…i mean this game called the free market. So while us individuals are competing with each other, those who are higher up the food chain who created this game carry on raking in millions.

    It's a good game, while we are competing amongst ourselves, we are not competing with them. Divide and conquer.

    stumpyjon
    Full Member

    Redundancy can be a necessary evil, work loads may have dropped so an organisation doesn't need so many people, genuine sustainable efficiencies can be made meaning not as many people are needed. In an ideal world this excess labour would be used to produce more goods for expanding markets, people retain jobs, business get stronger and everyone wins. Unfortunately when you have a had government like the previous one coupled with a world wide recession even the best run business is going to find things challenging. Not sure the current conlib government is much better, I'm all for cutting back public expenditure, I just want to make sure things that are pointless or wasteful get can, the cuts being announced at the moment seem to be rather arbitary or politically motivated, I don't think there has been enough time to have properly assesed what's important and what's not yet alone put inplace proper reorganisation plans. The whole school milk thing showed the political dimension. Free school milk probably is a luxary these days and no where near as beneficial to public helath as it was. So it was all due for canning until some one in call me Dave's office suddenly made a connection with Thatcher the Milk Snatcher. Not a good way to run a government.

    As for managers, the best managers don't necessarily know their employees jobs inside out, that's what the employees are for. What a good manager will always remember though is that they add no value to the goods or services being produced, they are effectively a non value added overhead. They're only justifying their existance if they are helping the people adding value be more effective. Shame most managers think they are the most important people in the business, see how much money they make without people on the shop floor / behind the counter.

    pk-ripper
    Free Member

    El-bent – Member

    Unions r saracin

    But they were good enough to fight for the terms and conditions which someone like you enjoys today. I suppose you are too stupid to realise that though.

    If you'd actually looked at what I've already posted on this thread, you would have realised I'd already posted that. But of course I'm too stupid to have done so obviously.

    So, take those keyboard warrior hands away from the computer and re-engage them in some liberal hand-wringing, there's a good boy.

    vinnyeh
    Full Member

    so, there we are then- BAA reassesses their finances, decides that it can, after all, dig a little deeper into it's pockets, adds in a bit of profit related pay, and an agreement is reached. Not quite the end of civilisation, was it- if anything a reassertion of it.

    skiprat
    Free Member

    And i still get to go on my holiday next week!!!! Yay!!

    Thank you all for working it out. 😀

    TandemJeremy
    Free Member

    Thank goodness as I am due to fly out on Saturday.

    Someone earlier on this thread asked if a strike had =ever done any good. I think the threat of a strike here has given the workforce the leverage to get a better deal so in this case it has.

    molgrips
    Free Member

    Do the workers deserve a payrise tho? And can the company afford it?

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    "Do the workers deserve a payrise tho?"

    Well if the employees turn up for work, then I see no reason why they should deserve a pay cut. And if they receive no pay rise, or a pay rise below the rate of inflation, then it represents a pay cut in real terms.

    BAA employees received no pay rise last year, and the latest offer is well below the rate of inflation.

    "And can the company afford it?"

    That's not their problem. It is BAA's problem to deal with increase costs.

    When the utility companies for example, increase their prices and bill BAA, BAA can't just tell them "the company can't afford it". The utility companies would simply reply "that's your problem – not ours".

    The wages bill is no different to any other bill. Just because it concerns 'people's livelihood', doesn't mean that it shouldn't be paid in full.

    And anyway, BAA presumably saved themselves a considerable amount of money last year by refusing to pay any increases in wages. And continue to do so this year by paying increases below the inflation rate.

    The question which really should be asked, is "And can the employees afford the latest offer, when the retail price index is 4.8% ?"

Viewing 11 posts - 161 through 171 (of 171 total)

The topic ‘BAA to strike over a measly 1% pay rise..’ is closed to new replies.