geetee1972 - MemberOld Labour style apparatchik.
Impressed with the fact you got to use the word 'apparatchik' and in a derogatory way also!
Thanks, but it really wasn't difficult. I notice my spelling wasn't completely correct, though.
I'd like to reassure any Unite fans that it wasn't an attempt to impugn Mr Woodley's sexuality, or nuffink. Like...
Whatever the [alleged]superb perks and terms and conditions no one [worker , manager , MP] will give them up after years of enjoying them just because others people doing other jobs dir ither companies dont have them. It is human nature to try and protect what you have even if what you have is an unfair share - see Tesco, billionaires ,footballers the list is literally endless.
Whether BA MUST do this or go bust is conjecture at presnet but if they were attempting ot reduce their cost base by reducing staff costs the 90% vote for a strike demonstrates that management has spectacularily failed to manage this change adequately ...whether this is deliberate to create a fight or ineptitude I cannot tell. However, offering a deal in negotiations and then withdrawing it afterwards is provocative in the extreme and I suspect them MD wanted this fight. I cannot really tell why he would offer something and then withdraw it - the union had to strike within 28 days of the ballot that is the law he surely knew this and they had little choice but to announce dates the strike could still have easily been prevented.
FWIW I am a Union rep and it really does take a lot to get people to actually strike they are fairly rare these days management really have to be cr@p at listening to their employees to let it get to that point It is rare to find a BA employee who is a rabid left wingers hell bent on the destruction of capitalism system via direct action
why should they have the right to just completely change his terms & conditions, after he's provided them 15 years service
Because if they don't, the company could be at risk.
If the company I worked for was struggling, I'd not complain about changes in conditions. If you do not make changes YOU WILL NOT HAVE A JOB! I can't see what the big deal is here.
Junkyard - that's a very well put argument (a few typos but nothing we can't forgive :wink:), even if it's not one I wholly agree with.
How willy walsh is still in his job after all these years of shite leadership at BA is beyond me.
Time and time again he picks fights that cost the company significantly more than they are designed to save. Current one is supposed to create 84m of savings, probably will eventually cost the business 10 times that. If I was a share holder I would be splitting blood.
Its very easy to slag off workers for self interest but they chose to work or stay at BA because of their terms and conditions why should they give them up because Walsh wants to come over all macho. How many on here would happily give up the car, bupa, whatever else AND take a cut in wages?
geetee1972 - MemberActually by and large TJ is right on this one. Unions play a very different role in Germany to that here
Ta
Its very easy to slag off workers for self interest but they chose to work or stay at BA because of their terms and conditions why should they give them up because Walsh wants to come over all macho. How many on here would happily give up the car, bupa, whatever else AND take a cut in wages?
If it meant I had a chance at keeping my job, then yes. Everyone knows the dire financial state of BA.
A cut in benefit and wages is a whole lot better than trying to find a new job. And lets face it, even with the cut, they are likely to still be paid significantly higher than the rest of the industry.
Keep going like this, and they will find out what its really like out there. I can only see this ending one way now.
Too right, christ i would give up benefits in a second if i got to keep my job.
I am interviewing some highly experienced people for jobs well below them at the moment due to the thin line in work out there. Time for the cabin crew to take the blinkers off.
Interestingly I flew BA back from the US on Saturday 20th March when they were striking there was all this hype about it! Barely noticed a difference except no hot food on the flight, no duty free (now that was a blinking god send, them not bleating over the tannoy every 2 minutes after some cr** perfume or cudddly toy!) and less attendance. They only asked if you wanted a drink maybe 2 or 3 times throughout the 9 hour flight, however they were happy for people to go to them at the back and ask them for snacks/munchies or drinks!!!
Oh and got a $9 food voucher to eat in the airport as there wasn't so much food on the flight!
Don't think you'll find much sympathy for the strike for those within BA that are not trolley dollies. Most haven't had a payrise for 3-4 years now.
The management need to make BA competitive - I think we'd all agree on this
Common sense says that if they're paying over the odds for staff, they need to work out a way to reduce that - Again, I think most would agree with that.
What the management have done badly is actually implemented this. Staff at companies around the country/world have taken pay cuts or similar by agreement because they can see the necessity of it. So either the BA staff who are striking are all numpties only out for what they can get in the short term or they don't really properly understand why the changes are necessary.
The fact that it's come to a strike is the result of this and will always mean that people take it personally so logic goes out of the window and it ends up far more damaging. From a cold logical POV, I totally understand why previous offers were withdrawn by the management but then maybe it wasn't the best way to manage a situation that had already got out of hand.
I suspect that what will eventually happen is that BA continues to make a loss because they can't make the changes they need to and because customers won't use them (speaking from experience here) and either goes bust or gets bought by someone else who can turn it round.
Exactly clubber - good management would have managed change without creating this dispute.
Funny Clubber, all the other staff in BA have done their bit without complaint so the management must be doing something right.
Well in those instances, yes, breatheeasy - in this specific case, I do wonder why it's different. Maybe they are all numpties but if the percentage in favour is reaching 90% then I have to suspect that the management have gone wrong somewhere - and note that as I said, that doesn't necessarily mean that what they're proposing is wrong, just the way that it's been presented to people.
Overall - a sense that both management and unions have failed. I have been working for the same company for the last 25 years - or rather I have never left the company. It is on its fourth owner and the work I do has changed hugely. My T&Cs have changed throughout the process. It is unrealistic to expect otherwise. Lack of pay rises has become the norm, reduced benefits have become standard. With one exception the staff have gone along with it. Those that didn't like it, left.
The same will have to happen here. BA cannot continue with its current wage structure. Unite must know that. BA management basically have triggered the strike by getting Unite in a corner and calling their bluff. I suspect none of the staff want to lose pay but Unite and the BA management are forced into a situation where the staff lose out.
(I suspect the perks have gone for good - if it ain't in your T&C's but is part of the goodwill that the company hands out then they can withdraw it at any time. If it is your T&C's then the taxman will want his share too!)
All in all the 'losers' are the staff. At a guess I suspect the agreement at the end will be reduced manning levels, the poor agreement offered by BA and the re-instatement of the perks. Pointless from both sides
Where on earth did Unite get that 1970's millitant scally union guy from ??
Liverpool.
so you work for a loss making company and rather than accept a job in the future you want them to carry on making a loss until the business sinks.
A job is not for life its for as long as your notice period.
The problem isnt really a lack of realism from the workforce, the problem is that the management has escalated the dispute to a point where they are betting the future of the business in order to win a relatively small cost reduction.
Clubber's point is well made, the fact that BA has failed to come to a compromise with its staff and has created the current deadlock is a lack decent management (or perhaps a need to pick a fight). In most cases or a workforce to vote 90+% for industrial action the management would need to be proposing something pretty unpalatable.
fair enough sack them all
Lack of pay rises has become the norm, reduced benefits have become standard. With one exception the staff have gone along with it. Those that didn't like it, left.
If this is allowed to become the norm everywhere, all of us are worse off apart from those who run the business and shareholders. Does that sound like a change for the better? I'm not interested in the specifics of the BA dispute, just the general principle. Get paid £30k for pushing a trolley? Fair play, sounds ok to me 🙂 There is always a lot of petty jealousy around these threads, people need to focus on their own lives a bit more.
If this is allowed to become the norm everywhere, all of us are worse off apart from those who run the business and shareholders. Does that sound like a change for the better?
Finally, someone talking sense.
Lack of inflationary pay rises is unlikely to become the norm across the board for obvious reasons. It will happen in companies that are paying over what they can afford at present and need to cut their cost base (eg like BA!) but can only go on for so long or the people who are good will eventually leave as they get effectively paid less. Once again, choice to stay at a company is always there.
Pay rises (non-inflationary) shouldn't be the norm as they are at some places it seems - they should be based on performance.
But looking on the bright side, anything that causes fewer people to fly has to be a good thing?
Whilst I agree the BA management haven't handled this amazingly well I don't get all this bullshit that they should compromise on their demands. I'd happily place a bet on a BA exec knowing more about what they need to save on costs to have a viable business in the future than someone who pushes a trolley around at 30000 feet.
Pay rises (non-inflationary) shouldn't be the norm as they are at some places it seems - they should be based on performance.
All well and good, except PRP is not actually that great a motivator in most instances and it would be difficult to objectively measure the performance of an individual trolly dolly.
I'd happily place a bet on a BA exec knowing more about what they need to save on costs to have a viable business in the future than someone who pushes a trolley around at 30000 feet.
I dare say a mill owner once knew more about saving costs than the small boys who used to dodge the flying shuttles to collect the fluff under the looms.
As a frequent user of BA, it seems to me that until a few years ago BA looked very much like a business that was run for the benefit of the staff rather than the customers. Most of the crew on higher pay will be the longer serving people who remember this and will naturally do their best to keep living in the past (and who can blame them, it always looked like a cushy number to me as I stood waiting in a sweaty immigration queue whilst the crew marched past on their way to the car waiting to take them to their expensive hotel). And I think Unite is exploiting this situation - Unite have a window to behave badly whilst Gordon is desperate for their money and won't get in the way, and I doubt if they care if BA goes bust. At the same time they know that Walsh will push things as far as he can. Can't see any way this can end well for the striking crew who are (perhaps naive) pawns in this game.
'I aint gettin' on no goddam' plane... crazy FOOL'
I dare say a mill owner once knew more about saving costs than the small boys who used to dodge the flying shuttles to collect the fluff under the looms.
You are taking the piss, surely?
As a frequent user of BA, it seems to me that until a few years ago BA looked very much like a business that was run for the benefit of the staff rather than the customers.
How lazy is this? Can you be bothered to develop a point instead of this vague nonsense?
Firstly, if you didn't like it, why didn't you fly with someone else? That would be applying the market forces you seem to think are so cool?
Secondly, good businesses are run for the benefit of the stakeholders, which include the staff and customers. But actually, I think you will find that most businesses are run for neither the benefit of the staff or the customers - they are run for the benefit of the owners of the business!!!
Firstly, if you didn't like it, why didn't you fly with someone else?
One might assume whoever he worked for had a deal with them, rather than him flying from his own choice?
One might, in which case shouldn't he take it up with the people he was working for?
Or maybe he should just have been thankful he wasn't being packed off on RyanAir?
Trouble is, young people today don't know they're born.
As a frequent user of BA, it seems to me that until a few years ago BA looked very much like a business that was run for the benefit of the staff rather than the customers.
Totally agree with this, I think Virgin cabin staff are so much better than BA it's not funny. The BA cabin staff look disinterested and fed up.
@rightplacerighttime, I have never had a choice in who I fly with (apart from holiday trips), do you think the adminstators at most companies give a shit if the staff are surley on BA flights?
No, I don't. But if it's such a massive problem, maybe you should ask your administrators not to book you with BA?
BA might be crap, but I'm not really interested in that. What I am interested in is why people continually moan about everything and expect everyone else to conform to their ideals, when clearly it isn't going to happen.
If you like BA, fly BA. If you don't like BA, don't fly BA. If your firm tells you to fly BA and you don't like it, then complain, or leave, or accept that you're actually not that really bothered, but are probably short of something of real significance to moan about.
I've only followed this through the media, so don't have any minute detail, however what comes across to me as a member of Joe Public is that BA is struggling, and wish to reduce costs, which has happened in a lot of private sector businesses and will happen soon in the public sector.
The Unite members were told a number of weeks ago that strike would mean loss of travel perks, so now that the strike has become reality, the threat has become reality.
The fact that unite members are so unhappy over this issue makes their strike actions seem very selfish.
If you like BA, fly BA. If you don't like BA, don't fly BA. If your firm tells you to fly BA and you don't like it, then complain, or leave, or accept that you're actually not that really bothered, but are probably short of something of real significance to moan about.
Where in my post did in imply it's a massive problem or moan about anything?? I'm stating a my opinion, in my experience, the highly paid BA cabin staff are not as good as competitors, and they your suggestion that "Firstly, if you didn't like it, why didn't you fly with someone else?" is probably not sensible option for most (business) flyers, because the quality of service of peanuts on the flight is not really a factor in choosing an airline for most companies.
But I'll take on board your suggestion...next time I get booked on a BA flight, i'll tell them to ram the job.
Sorry, I should have written "If one doesn't like BA..." Except that most people don't talk like that anymore.
But YOU did seem to be continuing the point that Rio was making when he said:
stood waiting in a sweaty immigration queue whilst the crew marched past on their way to the car waiting to take them to their expensive hotel
Quite what he expected the BA cabin crew to do about the "sweaty immigration queue" I'm not sure.
And I'm not sure how he knew that they were off to an "expensive hotel" (as opposed to the rat hole his bastard employers were sending him to !?) But clearly he resents them for it.
Anyway, you should be pleased that BA will soon be out of business, then maybe your employers will be forced to send you off with a good airline.
[url= http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/business/o%27leary%2c-warns-ba-boss-201003242588/ ]The answer to the BA strike[/url]
But clearly he resents them for it.
Actually I didn't have a problem with it, particularly I as usually wasn't paying for the tickets, and I like flying BA and would choose them over other carriers as long as they can get me there reliably (which used to be the case but now that they strike a lot it isn't). If the staff were able to treat the company as a no-cost travel agent then good on them. But it's clear that that sort of thing can't continue now that the airline industry has gone from a cosy club of national carriers to the cut-throat business it is today.
The bit about marching through the special crew immigration is a legacy of when cabin crew had to be presented as glamorous and special, but now it's bad PR - they should either hide the special lanes or just queue up like everyone else. And I know they went to expensive hotels - I often stayed in the same ones.
Come home Billy Bird.
If this is allowed to become the norm everywhere, all of us are worse off apart from those who run the business and shareholders. Does that sound like a change for the better?
This is a desperately niaeve view Penny; the world stopped being an 'us and them' game a long time ago. You are a shareholder in almost all of these companies because (I imagine) you have a pension, which is invested in these companies. The better these companies perform financially, the better your pension's going to be.
The world does not owe you a living; your place in the economy, whether it's private or public sector, is not independent of financial markets; you're a cog in the overall machine and the better that machine works, the better your life will be. Over the last decade we've got fat and lazy; people have expected the good times to just carry on rolling along (like house prices for crying out loud). You have to take responsibility for the fact that we've all been getting paid more than we're probably worth and it'a payback time. If you don't like that harsh reality, then you can always go and be a hermit on an island somewhere.
...and the Oscar for 'best supporting tory troll of the thread' goes to...
ahem, if I can just, open, the envelope....
Geetee1972! for his last post! 🙂
Good times? Paid more than we're worth?
Speak for yourself!
I'd like to thank.....
Now, if you cry during your speech, I'll boak! 😕
You are a shareholder in almost all of these companies
No I'm not. But let me tell you, being desperately naive keeps a massive grin on my face almost permanently 😉 I guess I'd rather be the village idiot than the town crier... To be honest, even in situations where someone elses wage directly affects mine I don't worry too much about it. I'm happy with my lot and don't begrudge anyone else theirs.
