deadly, I think there are some who would point out that employers, especially large corporate ones exist only to selflessly provide public-service, jobs and fluffy bunnies, and its only the evil, unionised workforce that seek to destroy this utopia. 🙄

Now save your bile STW, that way you'll be able to enjoy it more if Lloyds TSB staff vote in favour of industrial action over the new pay and conditions deal I predict some people on here might die of indignation.

"Sadly, like bloated rockstars they forget where they came from and how to interact with others."

Not unlike executives then I guess.

BA need to compete. simple. Change is essential and inevitable. That said, given the volatility of UNITE I would have said that I would have gone about applying these changes in a mores sensitive way.

The thing that UNITE never, ever seem to grasp is that a business losing £350m a year is not sustainable, and will lead to the demise of the union itse;f as they'll have no one left to represent!

jimbo, while it may/ may not be true of BA, (I'm not to say),
I do question the automatic mantra many always repeat of 'change is essential and inevitable'
Most changes I've seen are not to benefit anyone other than shareholders, at the workforces expense, absolutely not to improve service to the public.
I'm willing to bet that if 'essential, inevitable' change came knockin' on your door you wouldn't be so philosophical…

I would not deny them the right to strike, but I think they are wrong on this one. I don't believe this is about bosses abusing the rights of workers, it's about the survival of the firm.

Workers and bosses (who are also workers) are in the sh1t together. If BA can't be competitive they will go bust and all their jobs will be lost. If the employees and their union want BA to survive and thrive they have to commit to supporting the firm in any way they can. and that might mean personal sacrifices, not strikes.

"The thing that UNITE never, ever seem to grasp is that a business losing £350m a year is not sustainable, and will lead to the demise of the union itse;f as they'll have no one left to represent!"

According to the figures I've seen the protested cuts are expected to yield 62.5m in savings. So is a business losing 287.5m per year sustainable then?

The union (apparently) put a counteroffer on the table that would have saved around 20m per year. And the estimated cost of this strike to BA is already quoted at 27m. So, we're already getting close to parity here.

All these numbers are from sources I don't consider totally reliable btw so they could well be wrong.

That is quite well argued Buzz, and as I say, I dont have enough knowledge of this individual dispute to say.
One of the things that (in general) though, I always notice is that workers at the lowest end of the chain are always the ones asked to make disproportionate sacrifices.
Companies that do this dont deserve to have any worker loyalty.

"workers at the lowest end of the chain are always the ones asked to make disproportionate sacrifices"

A fair point. But there are more of them so a small drop in income for them saves a lot in wages. But bosses should be seen to be make proportionate sacrifices too or trust breaks down.

Some years ago, my company nearly went bust due to a combination of project failures and exchange rate pressures. Sadly, jobs were lost, wages cut etc. But all the senior managers who were kept on put some personal savings into the firm to keep it going – only what they could afford, but it was enough.

west kipper – Member
The likes of Captainflashheart, should secretly enjoy some strikes;
my union, The CWU, was on strike last year- It, and the workforce were successfully portrayed as the bad guys, and at the end of the day the negotiations ended in the union accepting huge pay cuts, massive increases to already unmanageable workloads, and lots of us being forced to leave the job voluntarily (without redundancy)

I hope you all don't complain when you get twenty junkmail leaflets with your 5pm mail delivery.

Posted 1 hour ago # Report-Post

Nobody is being forced to leave without redundancy! maximum of 6 d2d and 3pm last letter in citys and 4pm rurals with lots of flexible working you seem to have some bad info there Kipper! its a terrible deal for frontline delivery staff but it could have been worse will vote No but it will be a yes vote 😥

My point was merely that some workers who disagree with a change to their working conditions might consider moving jobs. Is that a bad thing? No. It's called "choice". "Free will", if you will.

Or they could consider opposing the changes through industrial action. Their choice. "Free will", if you will.

I know it's inconvenient for some employers, but you just can't rely on the workforce just getting rolling over, sometimes they feel they have to fight the imposition of changes which disadvantage them. It directly and immediately costs them money to do so, and if their longer-term future is also jeopardised by such action then you might want to wonder why they still go ahead with it.

They should double up their strike efforts to extend it longer to ensure that BA is absolutely is gone forever. That will learn them.

Being paid more than other airlines and still wanting more … way to go … well done … Strike! Strike! Strike! More! More! More!

Ooops! In the meantime Mr Beardy Brandson is rubbing his hands all the way to the bank because he is going to be the next "national" airline by replacing BA.

😈

As someone who is very likely to end up stranded at the other side of the planet because of this bull . . . and who will lose salary by being unable to return to work, and cause my travel insurance company to pay out money to me thus ultimately costing you all more in your insurance premiums . . .

I hope BA let them strike, I hope that causes increased losses and I damn well hope that the repercussions of that are that they downsize their cabin crew headcount through mandatory redundancy, I also hope that, informally of course, those in their organisation involved in this stupidity are 'targetted' to get the bullet first.

While it greatly inconveniences me (and many thousands of fare paying passengers) I would and will gladly support BA in breaking this totally unrealistic approach by the union and the many cabin crew who seem to be lapping up everything the union says.

I really wonder if these people are bright enough to understand the implications of their and their unions actions . . . I don't think so, and would expect more and more whining and strikes when the next inevitable steps come . . .

zero sympathy, sack them . . .

I really wonder if these people are bright enough to understand the implications of their and their unions actions . . . I don't think so, and would expect more and more whining and strikes when the next inevitable steps come . . .

You may be right. It may be true that the frothing keyboard-bashers at STW are the only people who are able to take a balanced and considered view of this whole affair, and are the only ones who have grasped that a threat to BA's future is a threat to the strikers' future livelihood.

Almost certainly not though.

From June 2008 – Willie Walsh agreed to work for nothing in July, in a show of solidarity with the 800 workers who BA say volunteered to do the same.

You have to admire a man willing to make such a sacrifice for the good of 'The Company'. The fact that he will still earn over £670,000 for the year without bonus/shares etc. (potentially well over £1M) is obviously neither here nor there when you are negotiating pay freezes and staff reductions.

The unions aren't exactly covering themselves in glory either but it's difficult to keep a grip on the present commercial reality when your position is secure and you are staying (as always) in the best local hotel.

The management in my lot (NHS) recently asked the union if the, in their words, 'loyal staff', would mind taking a 5% pay cut to improve services while at the same time, many senior management have gone from Band 8a to 8b to accommodate the extra responsibility that 'Trust Status' will bring. Fantastic employee motivation 🙄

Banding details below………and they wonder why the union weren't very enthusiastic !
Band 8a
Point 34 37,996
Point 35 39,273
Point 36 40,853
Point 37 42,434
Point 38 44,258
Point 39 45,596

Band 8b
Point 38 44,258
Point 39 45,596
Point 40 47,905
Point 41 50,580
Point 42 53,256
Point 43 54,714

west kipper – Member
jimbo, while it may/ may not be true of BA, (I'm not to say),
I do question the automatic mantra many always repeat of 'change is essential and inevitable'
Most changes I've seen are not to benefit anyone other than shareholders, at the workforces expense, absolutely not to improve service to the public.
I'm willing to bet that if 'essential, inevitable' change came knockin' on your door you wouldn't be so philosophical…

I'm an ex BA employee. conditions changed due to the needs of the business. The job wasn't what it once was, though I understood that this had to happen. I decided it wasn't for me, so I went and found a job I wanted to do. I chose to leave.

As for conditions for cabin crew. It's no secret that they are simply the best in the industry, for perks, pay, holiday, pensions – you name it. IF crew employment conditions were benchmarked against the rest of the industry, they would be a lot worse of than the conditions being proposed now. though I admit that it COULD be seen as then thin end of the wedge.

I just hope that the union doesn't lead the workers down a path that results in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs – this particular strike is costing circa £25m…..

So why are BA employees paid so much better with better conditions than other UK based airlines? Is it because the union is so strong that they've pushed up the terms but now market conditions are becoming more difficult these conditions are making the company unviable? I'm not management but I do wonder if by looking after their own short-term interests they are causing long-term damage.

As for BA management, well they want what's best for the company as a whole – long-term profitabilty – so purposefully making things difficult in these times seems unlikely – unless they feel a Thatcher style bg smash is the only way to make a fundamental change to the power the union holds over the company.

As for BA management, well they want what's best for the company as a whole – long-term profitabilty – so purposefully making things difficult in these times seems unlikely – unless they feel a Thatcher style bg smash is the only way to make a fundamental change to the power the union holds over the company.

What a crock. Anyone who is an employee goes to work to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head. The only people who Truly Want what's best for the company is the shareholders.
Most employees keep their heads down and work the contracted hours for the agreed pay, nothing else matters to them.

Anyone who is an employee goes to work to put food on the table and keep a roof over their head.

Anyone? There are many who don't have to worry about such base things – they are are more interested in higher things – see Maslow.

The only people who Truly Want what's best for the company is the shareholders.

Individual shareholders tend to lean to short-term reward as can sell at any time; institutional investors do take a longer term view though and management – for a bit company I mean snr mgt and executives – are in place to do what the shareholders want – the more senior you are the more at risk of getting pushed out from the owners you are.

TJ
Good management with good employer/ employee relationships don't have strikes

jimbobrighton
BA need to compete. simple. Change is essential and inevitable. That said, given the volatility of UNITE I would have said that I would have gone about applying these changes in a mores sensitive way.

The thing that UNITE never, ever seem to grasp is that a business losing £350m a year is not sustainable, and will lead to the demise of the union itse;f as they'll have no one left to represent!

These are the two most sensible/accurate posts on this thread I reckon (once again, God help me for agreeing with TJ). Unless Unite's only goal is troublemaking (which I doubt because their members would tell them where to go when it costs them money) then the management have handled the situation badly while Unite seem to have unrealistic expectations about what is acceptable when your company is making massive losses.

There are many who don't have to worry about such base things – they are are more interested in higher things – see Maslow.

Maslow doesn't feature in a lot of employed peoples lives, there also has to be a very good relationship with the employer for him to get a look in.

"Most employees keep their heads down and work the contracted hours for the agreed pay, nothing else matters to them."

What a crock. Income and pension continuity matters.

Maslow – from what I see on these pages income often takes 2nd place to lifestyle here.

I work in another industry where a large proportion of our work force is represented by Unite, and have had first hand experience of what I think is a fairly similar situation (see if you can see the similarities with BA)..

The Unite workforce here is:
The best paid in Europe
With the best conditions
but performance is poor by industry standards
In the last year the company has made massive losses.
Everybody outside of the union here office staff etc feel they're over paid lazy whining gits!

Big speech from the MD at a mass meeting, he said was happy to pay the best,
IF! performance reflected it and the future of the company is in all of our our hands.
The speech was taken well by half the room and not so well by the other half.
I'll let you guess which side was which.

So negotiations started to look at changes for the better for the company as a whole and the future.
No pay cuts on the table at all, a small % of redundancy's and changes in conditions to get a bit more work out of the main workforce (moving toward industry standards).
many changes around the office, with some sadly going (many have found the grass really is greener)
The union and unionised workforce from my view have done everything they can to make the process fail! strikes threatened etc next to no changes there at all
which tbh was were the change is needed most
So the management has climbed down as their appear to be scared of the repercussions

So the company is still loosing money, performance is not up.

I bloody hate Unite, I'll be looking for a new job elsewhere soon
(bit of study/training to do first) this one has no future, which a real shame.

now that's a rant, marks out of 10 please?

mudshark

Maslow – from what I see on these pages income often takes 2nd place to lifestyle here.

+1

They're so well paid here money it's no longer a motivating factor at all.
All they're concerned with is not being on the job, in their mess room/when they can get home early

Unless Unite's only goal is troublemaking

What do you think Charlie Whelan's agenda is? Do you think he's only interested in what's best for the workforce?

Well that's the question. I guess that I don't have enough direct experience of unions to understand why their membership would allow it when it costs them money.

'cos Unite and their members seem to be as think as ….

I've been quite interested in this because I know a few BA staff – a good mate is a pilot who'll be standing in as cabin crew during the strike and a couple of mates are dating cabin crew. I still don't exactly know what they're striking about, despite a lengthy drunken discussion with one of the hosties 😆

Overall my impression of the strike isn't good, I feel Unite have represented their staff badly – if they do have a legitimate grievance then the Christmas strike plans killed it because they were stupidly long and ill timed, meaning they instantly lost all public opinion. I also get a fair idea of the perks that come with being BA crew and they are substantial.

I may be way off, but I get the impression the BA staff are still enjoying the spoils of the old fashioned jetset lifestyle, which doesn't add up anymore – good budget airlines mean BA can't simply stand out by offering an image of luxury and class, they have to get cheaper, so their staff can no longer live in the rarified atmosphere they once did. At the end of the day the staff look like they're shooting themselves in the foot by hurting an already struggling employer.

'seem to be as think as'….you?

I say fair play to BA workers defending their conditions of service and jobs (even though I've two flights booked with them in April).

fair enough I made a typo

but if you were the best paid in your industry (30-40% better) with the best conditions and your company was loosing money,
you're saying you'd still refuse to change anything?
your choice, I don't object to you having a choice
But you'll be selecting your future employment and your company for the Darwin awards IMHO

I know a BA cabin crew employee too and he wants to keep his conditions as they are, of course, they're bloody brilliant!
But he can also see the long term damage they are doing to the company, he didn't vote to strike

Bankers appear not to have reduced their conditions of service and rewards despite having done not a very good job. Why should it be assumed that the employees and tax payers are always the ones to carry the can for crises in the system. J M Keynes showed us how it's not a good idea to reduce people's income in a recession because that gives them less money to spend.

wot Buzzlightyear says seems sensible ^^

I think BA is doomed – haven't flown with them for years as I always used to find their cabin crew less than friendly (even though it seems they're the best paid in the industry)
I even made the mistake once of treking across Tehran many years ago to find a BA office to change my return flight from Iran Air that some joker in the office had booked me with – the return flight was appaling compared with Iran Air.

So strike away and set the controls for the heart of the sun cos you're dooooooomed…….

Bankers appear not to have reduced their conditions of service and rewards despite having done not a very good job. Why should it be assumed that the employees and tax payers are always the ones to carry the can for crises in the system. J M Keynes showed us how it's not a good idea to reduce people's income in a recession because that gives them less money to spend.

That's fine, but how is that actually going to work out in this case given the state BA is in?

Easy to say I know when it's not your job on the line, but my impression of it is basically the same as llamafarmers:

I may be way off, but I get the impression the BA staff are still enjoying the spoils of the old fashioned jetset lifestyle, which doesn't add up anymore – good budget airlines mean BA can't simply stand out by offering an image of luxury and class, they have to get cheaper, so their staff can no longer live in the rarified atmosphere they once did. At the end of the day the staff look like they're shooting themselves in the foot by hurting an already struggling employer.

So yes to their rights to withhold their labour and all the rest of it, but they don't wave away the economic reality of it.

'cos Unite and their members seem to be as think as ….

Not as 'think' as the irony in your post 😆

Those who are against striking, perhaps you would like to go back to Victorian style pay and conditions – it's striking that won most of the improvements for workers in safety, pay, conditions etc

What have 'Bankers' got to do with this?

Rather than join a Union I think I'd rather put the subs into a bank account. I'm also not the sort of person who would be pushed around by anyone or follow rhetoric.

Whatever happens to BA they should not be bailed out … Let the market takes it's course.

I would urge the BA Union to push for all out full strike and not give an inch or even extend the strike as long as possible and the BA Management should simply ignores the Union. No need to have meeting etc just avoid them and forget about the call for talk. Ignore them. Tell the Govt to F off as it is none of their business.

Motivation? What motivation? It's simply a matter of stupidity and pure greed from the BA Union.

😆

p/s: let me give the Union a push …

Bankers appear not to have reduced their conditions of service and rewards despite having done not a very good job

Not the same thing. The bankers bonus affair is industry wide. Here we are talking about whether or not BA should have higher pay than the rest of the industry.

As for the service of BA, I found them to be way the best on the routes I typically fly.

Just watched the union spokesman giving an interview after the members meeting this morning. The style appears to have changed very little since Scargill et al.

Problem is that they are usually negotiating with well educated management who are undoubtedly advised by even better educated specialists in whatever given field the dispute is about. With the best will in the world, the union bosses I have had dealings with are generally poorly educated and have risen through the ranks because they are very politically motivated or simply because no-one else wanted the job.

It is little surprise that management usually comes out on top.

Here we are talking about whether or not BA should have higher pay than the rest of the industry.

Not really. Well, at least we started out talking about whether the BA staff are right to consider withdrawing their labour in opposition to unilateral changes to their terms and conditions which are being proposed by management. T & Cs which the management have previously negotiated and agreed.

Talks have now collapsed and the strike is on from midnight.

Railway strikes are also looking likely.

Nice lead up to the general election for Labour 🙄