MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
So, are these the desperate acts of a downtrodden workforce at the end of their tether, or is this all just selfish muscle-flexing from a bunch of narrow-minded lefty rabble rousers?
Option A
I got 0% last year...
If they strike when I'm trying to fly to Canada I am personally going to kick every member squarely in the balls. So option B.
nothing this year or for the next 2yrs 😐
Most people won't get much of a rise - we're all in this together....
bunch of ****s..
I've not had a pay rise for 2 years, next year ain't looking so good either
I took a little bet with myself that there would be several folk posting " I got no payrise why should they"
I don't know anything about he history of the dispute so don't know - my guess is that the BAA has made significantly more than 1% increase in profits - but that is a guess
TJ, BAA has posted a loss for the first half of the year according to the news this morning.
We made a fat profit last year and are still in profit this year, but our pay-rise was 1% less than the BAA offer.
Matt
We got nowt last year and 1% this year.
At one of our clients everyone got a 25% cut last year!
How should pay rises be decided? My company pays us based on what the market is paying for similar people so in that case the company's profits are irrelevant. Is that fair? Well I won't be able to leave for more money so I suppose so. I can't really strike though....
I don't know anything about he history of the dispute so don't know - my guess is that the BAA has made significantly more than 1% increase in profits - but that is a guess
My work does not generate an income so cannot make a "profit" so are you saying that I should never get a pay rise using your formula?
matt_bl - MemberTJ, BAA has posted a loss for the first half of the year according to the news this morning.
Fair enough - over the whole year tho?
We made a fat profit last year and are still in profit this year, but our pay-rise was 1% less than the BAA offer.Matt
You are being ripped off then - the workers who generate the profits should share in them - your bosses are using the recession as an excuse.
Actually, having looked at the figures, BAA made a loss last year, so I may retract my earlier statement.
Other companies, not mentioning any names, have offered less than one per sent when profits and dividends are up 15%. That takes the pi$$.
It's a good arguement for BAA not being allowed to own so many airports I think.
If that was the case then a dispute like this couldn't cause such widespread disruption.
Break the Spanish giant's (BAA's) grip on UK airports!
You are being ripped off then - the workers who generate the profits should share in them
So should we share in the losses too?
I'm in the process of booking 5 or 6 flights to take place over the next year between the UK and South Africa and I'm avoiding BA. I just can't take a chance on them not being able to move me when I need moving!
I'm sure Virgin are making a killing right now.
0 % last year
£450 ormised if they hit a target that they missed by 3%
Summer profit bonus of £7oo ish not to be paid
Who knows some employers are taking advantage of the fragile situation to get away with low wages at this time[ clearly not the bankers who got us in all this mess in the first place].
Some employees are not being realistic given current climate.
Dont know enough to be informed but the clealy feel strongly on this issue if thay are going on strike
SST
BA and BAA are differnt cmpanies one flies planes the other runs the airports planes fly from. Who you book with wont matter where they fly from will
[i]You are being ripped off then - the workers who generate the profits should share in them - your bosses are using the recession as an excuse. [/i]
I agree with TJ. Which admittedly makes me feel a bit funny 😉
[i]So should we share in the losses too?[/i]
The workers usually do, in the form of below-inflation pay rises (so effective pay cuts), or redundancy.
The workers usually do, in the form of below-inflation pay rises (so effective pay cuts), or redundancy.
Well if my company chose to pay people less than the market rate then some of us would leave so that wouldn't help them very much.
Market rate is the way for sure.
Why should they be allowed to strike. Get rid of the old fashioned unions. If you are not happy with the pay...leave.
Too many people are out of jobs and are trying desperately to find them. These folk would jump at the chance for a salary. Yes if you have a few offers on the cards then you can ask for a payrise and if the company is making good profit you have a point.
It is up to the company to decide it's pay and if they are making losses they aint gonna be willing to a payrise. For BAA I can sea a re-organisation happening, then the workers will wish they hadn't went on strike. Rather have a job with no pay rise than no job.
BAA has problems, it is highly leveraged following a takeover by a Spanish construction company and it is being forced to sell two of its most profitable airports and there is a decline in passengers.
Perhaps if they want a rise, look for another employer, or resign and you get a rise every year while on the dole,paid for by the taxpayer.
Theres plenty out there that could /would do the jobs at the airports, thats what unemployment causes a surplus of labour,so management have a good choice of who they employ.
would a BAA strike acheive anything other than p1ssing off the airport customers?
my inlaws have saved very long and hard to have a trip to canada next month to see family they havent seen for over 15 years - if that goes t1ts up they will be gutted
MS - MemberWhy should they be allowed to strike. Get rid of the old fashioned unions. If you are not happy with the pay...leave.
right!
so you work 60 hr weeks with no paid holiday, no sick pay etc etc -
Unions are needed to ensure the workforce get their fair share. Without unions you would be working in unsafe conditions with no holidays nor sick pay and 60 + hr weeks
Edit - no protection from unfair dismissal and no protection from harassment and no notice pay?
Get real
But do the workers all want to strike? One figure I heard was that on 50% of those eligible to vote actually did. Of those who voted 75% voted in favour of a strike. So hardly an overwhelming mandate to close the UK's airports.
The union in question is once again UNITE. Is this more about them excercising their perceived power than any genuine concern for their members?
Unions are needed to ensure the workforce get their fair share. Without unions you would be working in unsafe conditions with no holidays nor sick pay and 60 + hr weeks
Get real
And it is [b][u]tTHE GOVERNMNET WHO ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT CONTROL THIS LEGISLATION,[b][/u] not some overpaid gobby union chappie, looking to get himself on Sky.
I've had a zero pay increase in (now) the third year running.
I'm personally happy that I have a job.
Project - who fights to make the laws? Not the employers or the Tories thats for sure. They fight against every law to improve the lot of the working classes - most recently the minimum wage.. The labour movement which is (was) in the main the unions.
Understand some industrial history.
Pete - fair point, but we form governments on the outcomes of similar voting rates. Plus, those that didn't vote had the chance to and didn't, so their opinion counts for nothing.
Project - without the unions, much of the legislation wouldn't be there in the first place.
To be fair though, if you earn a hundred grand, 1% is a reasonable rise.
TJ
Without unions you would be working in unsafe conditions with no holidays nor sick pay and 60 + hr weeks
Historically, yes.
Nowadays don't we have a whole raft of health & safety, working hours, minimum wage, etc etc directives that negate the need for unions?
MS
Why should they be allowed to strike. Get rid of the old fashioned unions. If you are not happy with the pay...leave
Why not have a look at the working conditions in the dark satanic mills pre Unionisation or perhaps tell me what employers have freely given to workers in the past? Employers opposed, unions,education, ending of child labour holidays, holiday pay, sick pay, maternity pay, minimum wgae, working time directive etc.Everything really as frankly given a choice between profit and employer rights guess which they choose. they only employ you because they can make more money from your work than they pay you if they cant they sack you. [quoteIt is up to the company to decide it's pay
Surely the employers have the right to decide to accpet it?
Yes many people dont have jobs at the moment perhaps we should be angry at the bankers who got us in this mess rather than people who want a cost of living wage increase? Perhaps we should put full employment higher up our list iof priorities?
Den given you think that employers ar enow benign and nce have a look at the likelhood of being sacked if you are in a union or not. See also wage rises for unionised via non unionsied,hours of work etc. Utter fantasy employers dont care unless you organise against them. Like saying we dont need the police because we have laws now.
[i]To be fair though, if you earn a hundred grand, 1% is a reasonable rise[/i]
Indeed. However, I doubt that most of Unite's members in the airports earn a fifth of that.
Peter unions have no power - only the collective membership does. Without the support of the workforce no strike will work
It may well be that this is a stupid and pointless strike - I don't know if the employer can reasonably afford a payrise or not.
tj ITS fought, theres no r,
If the workers want jobs, they have the choice over what job they do, and what pay they take, if not they are free to get another job,or to sign on for a lot less pay.
DenDennis - and who makes sure these are enforced? - unions. hence unionised workplaces have better compliance with the law
Ban strikes in all industries, anyone strikeing gets the sack, and then somebody can either have a new job, or be retrained to do a new job, then the ones who have been sacked may realise that some small gobby bloke who still got paid lost them their job.
i'm supposed to be flying out of heathrow on the 25th and given they haven't given a date, this is making things rather uncertain.
They are striking over a pay rise of 1% and that they didn't get a target driven bonus for which they didn't meet the target anyway!! totally ridiculous. on top of that, they only balloted 40+% (not even half of those who they could).
its a joke And I am rather p1ssed off with it all
Project - the classic thatcherite way of forcing down labour costs - amke sure there is a large pool of impoverished unemployed willing to do any job at any wage.
Your argument would only hold true if there was full employment thus a free market - at the moment the labour market is rigged in favour of the employers
hence unionised workplaces have better compliance with the law
agreed.
But these guys are asking for a pay rise, not compliance with agreed laws/salaries etc
[i]Ban strikes in all industries, anyone strikeing gets the sack, and then somebody can either have a new job, or be retrained to do a new job, then the ones who have been sacked may realise that some small gobby bloke who still got paid lost them their job. [/i]
And we're back in the 18th Century...
Without unions you would be working in unsafe conditions with no holidays nor sick pay and 60 + hr weeks
No unions in my company...not that I'm anti unions for this sort of stuff just don't think holding your employer to ransom is an appropriate way to behave when after a bit more cash.
To be fair though, if you earn a hundred grand, 1% is a reasonable rise
Is it? I mean surely most of us compare our rises to inflation to see how reasonable they are? Or market rate of course....
Project hysterical nonesens again. there really is a middle way to balance the need of comapnies to be profitable and the need of employees to be paid a reasonable wage and have reasnable working conditions. You may as well advocate slavery and us being grateful our owners feed us. and if we dont work they dont feed us and someone els ewill be grateful for the meal.
[i]they only balloted 40+% (not even half of those who they could).[/i]
They balloted 100%, 40+% responded. There's a big difference.
Get rid of old fashioned boards of directors. If they want workers to do their jobs, respect them and pay them well.
Too many people are of jobs because of poor management decisions. These folk would jump at the chance to work hard for a salary and respect. Yes if you have a few offers you can exploit your position at the expense of other people.
It is up to the company made up of its workers to decide its pay, not just the directors. Rather have a mutually beneficial system than crap pay and conditions.
Yes the unions of the past got better working conditions, sick pay etc. But nowadays can you tell me what they get apart from pushing for a pay rise.
TJ - HSE, etc are involved now to combat that. You can work a 60 hour week if you want it just cant be imposed by your employer. So again what does the union actually do.
Employers can't get rid of folk just because there rubbish at their job. Unions should be scrapped. If a company was not paying sufficiently workforce turnover would be high and the company would then realise something would need to be done. Yes eevryone want more money, but kicking up a fuss doesnt work!!!!
Hang on hang on - [url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/topics-that-have-been-exhausted-and ]Haven't we done this one before ad nauseum?[/url]
They balloted 100%, 40+% responded. There's a big difference.
Yeah most people abstained - not sure what that means really; maybe not too bothered?
when i'm in charge, unions will be welcome, but everytime a union representative speaks in his or her capacity, he or she will have to start and end everything they say with a disclaimer:
'i'm getting paid £XXX per day while you suckers are on strike ... blah blah blah opressive blah blah blah unreasonable blah blah blah we would welcome the chance to negotiate blah blah blah ... i'm getting paid £XXX per day while you suckers are on strike'
gits.
[i]Yeah most people abstained - not sure what that means really; maybe not too bothered?[/i]
Exactly, so they therefore have to go along with the decision made by those that could be bothered to vote.
Employers can't get rid of folk just because there rubbish at their job
Wrong - its easy to do so - I have as an employer
You need to look at the functions of a union - representing individuals who need help - prevent abuse from employers and so on, ensuring compliance with the laws and taking employers to task when they don't.
You can tell what a sheltered bunch of white collar workers there are on here
Unions have a very important function in preventing employer abuse.
ahwiles - Memberwhen i'm in charge, unions will be welcome, but everytime a union representative..........
Ignorance again - union reps are not paid, full time officials are as they are employees of the union not the emplyer
BAA wants to wind itself up, re-open and put them all on new contracts with their new pay structure there.
I am due to fly out to the US on the 25th, 2 days after the day they are planning to start striking. We're flying Virgin but will be in trouble as we're going from Heathrow. Its our belated honeymoon so i'm sorry if all this sounds a bit harsh but they should in these times, be glad they have a job to go to. My wife a nurse and they are having a pay freeze.
Perhaps when a BAA member of staff needs a trip to the hospital, they should remember my wife will still be there looking after them and making sure they are ok as she has a duty of care to look after them, even without a payrise.
If it were me, i'd tell them i was on strike, sit down at the side of the bed, read their books, eat their grapes*, drink their lucazade and let them bleed!!!
*grapes the fruit not piles.
they did not abstain that requires a vote with no cross placed on it they did not vote at all..
You can read into it what you want but I think everyone will agree that voting [except for reality tv shows] is in decline on most issues and this is a bad thing. as your statement of fact shows.
Yeah most people abstained - not sure what that means really; maybe not too bothered?Exactly, so they therefore have to go along with the decision made by those that could be bothered to vote.
We cannot say how they would have voted but they did have the chance ot express an opinion if they wished to.
I'm personally happy that I have a job.
You're a fat cat's dream hora (and no, not in the way [i]you’re[/i] thinking)
As I understand the numbers - the actual total who voted for the strike is about 1/3 of the workforce..Apathy rules ok yeah?
Unions have a very important function in preventing employer abuse.
Trouble is there does seem to be a them'n'us culture in some companies rather than one where employees discuss and try to agree. I wouldn't want to work in a company where there are 2 sides in the same organization looking to fight each other - aren't we all in the same team really?
I suppose the problem is that low-skilled people are easily replaced and so they don't have much power unless they gang up against the management to get what they want. So glad I'm not part of all that really.
TandemJeremy - Memberahwiles -
Ignorance again
apologies.
i stand by my point though, the people driving the strike are not feeling the same pinch as the people they represent. they're still gits.
(i'm doing some homework on Andy Gilchrist - he's put me in a bad mood)
Aren't they demanding a 1% payrise, and a bonus that they [i]would have been[/i] entitled to if BAA had made slightly more money?
Can't say I'm wildly sympathetic, but there we are. I absolutely support the use of collective bargaining by labour over pay and conditions.
tiger - you get the point. Ta
[url= http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/topics-that-have-been-exhausted-and ]Clearly not exhausted![/url]
No unions in my industry and it works well.
Maybe going back to the dark agaes but if you go on strike you should be sacked. If you want more pay look for another job. If your boss says no pay rise then its up to you if you want to leave.
skiprat you are spot on. So should all NHS folk strike cos they are not getting a pay rise???? You shoudl not be able to demand a pay rise unless you have a few offers on the table.
your point being you hate unions and dont need facts to help you form this opinion. Excellent ahwiles ...even whn you are wrong you are right eh
[i]So should all NHS folk strike cos they are not getting a pay rise???? [/i]
They're not getting a rise because their employer (the Government) is running at a massive loss. I think it's perfectly reasonable that an employer who is losing money should use every means at their disposal to reverse that situation.
However, I object to situations where increases in profits and dividends massively outweigh increases in pay to the people who created those profits.
tiger - you get the point. Ta
Well I do but unfortunately I'm not completely sympathetic - not when it comes to pay rises in economic bad times anyway.
(i'm doing some homework on Andy Gilchrist - he's put me in a bad mood)
Don't start me off about him. 🙁
"They're not getting a rise because their employer (the Government) is running at a massive loss. I think it's perfectly reasonable that an employer who is losing money should use every means at their disposal to reverse that situation."
As long as they continue to be selective in choosing their targets though eh?
MS
our industry is hardly "typical" if you went on strike there are plenty of folk to fill your boots as its hardly bottom of the pay ladder relitive to effort put in ....
Junkyard - Memberyour point being you hate unions and dont need facts to help you form this opinion. Excellent ahwiles ...even whn you are wrong you are right eh
not quite, i used the word 'representative' when i meant 'full time official'
i'm probably very lucky, but during my short life, unions have only ever caused me inconvenience, and asked me for money while they do so.
They're not getting a rise because their employer (the Government) is running at a massive loss. I think it's perfectly reasonable that an employer who is losing money should use every means at their disposal to reverse that situation.
Just be glad Unite aren't a public sector union - BAA are running at a loss too. Maybe the groundstaff would be happier if BAA went bust because of giving out a pay rise and they all lost their jobs?
Ms +1
If those people at baa had ordinary jobs that did not affect the economy and public at large, would they go on strike or seek to leave for another company or position.
It's holding the nation at large to ransom due to petty greed.
Yes the unions of the past got better working conditions, sick pay etc. But nowadays can you tell me what they get apart from pushing for a pay rise.
plenty of stats on this go google
Equal pay claims, compenmsation claims against employers
staff in unionised workplaces generally get more pay and more paid holidays than those in non-unionised workplaces. Unionised workers are less likely to lose their jobs than those in non-unionised workplaces. If this does happen, they receive better compensation.
How about anecdote if you prefer. Who gets treated best Nike [and many other companies] European employees or non unionsied Nike empoyees in the far east? Claiming we dont need them is like claimng we dont need the police because we have courts and laws now.
When I saw the news with the Union leader talking about how BA had let people down I did honestly look at the table near me and consider hitting my head against it to make the pain of listening (and trying to decipher) his logic go away.
ahwilles full time officials dont directly represent memebers initially the stewards do.They support stewrads generally not members.Stewards [unpaid and elected] represent at disciplinaries and at wage negotiations etc. Paid officaials are only ever used when a legal dispute or a major issue arises int he workplace.
As the union official gets paid whether the workers strike or not [and the later is more work for them] why exactly would they prefer a strike? Everyone knows this is in in no ones best interest.
Would you make management declare how much profit they make over and above what they pay workers beofre they speak?
" I pay you 6 per housr but make £12 poer hour from your work blah blah blah?
Extreme one sided views help no one and engender conflict.
Can the unemployed strike because they want a job, or more money, NO, THEY GO AND LOOK FOR ANOTHER JOB OR RETRAIN,
Who pays these union blokes, the workers, so that makes the workers feel as if they are getting good information, instead of realising they are being paid to work, and the boss is paying them not the union bloke who is saying stop work lads, and ask for more money, and see the company fail.
Then youll all be out of jobs.
When I saw the news with the Union leader talking about how BA had let people down I did honestly look at the table near me and consider hitting my head against it to make the pain of listening (and trying to decipher) his logic go away.
Perhaps it will improve your hearing by knocking the dust out of your ears?
I wouldn't fly or book a BA flight just on the off chance there is a future strike or even talk of ballot action.
Its hard enough grinding away and then saving your money for a holiday only to worry if you will actually fly out.
I bet there are a fair few people out there who based their decision on carriers etc on this as well.
When the company is eventually broken up with wholesale redundancies and salary adjustment inline with the rest of the industry those who partook in this debacle will be well on their way to their pensions anyway feeling smug they fought 'for their right'.
As I said earlier I don't know enough about the background on this specific dispute to knw how much merit it has.
As for what unions can do for you I give tWo examples
I was the person helped in this one. As a direct part of some work I was doing I was called to a court as a witness. My employer refused to pay me despite the fact I was there is my professional capacity. I asked my union rep to intervene as I was getting nowhere on my own. he was able to get to the person who was able to make the decision and got it reversed. Worth around £100 to me. I might have been able to get it on my own but it would have been a lot harder.
A colleague when I was a rep worked a set pattern of shifts and had done for years. she had arranged complex childcare arrangements to make this work for her. The employer wanted to change her to work random shifts on two weeks notice. She was not able to do this and would have had to resign. I argued her case as a grievance and got her position protected. She was able to continue to work. She was not assertive and articulate to do this on her own.
An employer wanted to change shift patterns much to the detriment of staff ( to timings that would be illegal now) The staff collectively said no and the union took that answer to the management. The management realised that the vast majority of the workforce would refuse the changes and the changes were dropped. collective bargaining at work.
In the latter one there was a forum for union / management discussions every month in a co operative manner - this was raised at that and never came to a dispute as a result.
trail_rat
But that is what I am saying, there are plenty of people wanting jobs that cant get them so if you go on strike you should face the consequences! If we went on strike we would eb replaced so why shouldn't it work like that for the like s of BAA etc
Yes the oil indusry is stlightly different as the pay is much higher than most jobs of similar skill level.
Maybe I am still to young to experience this love for unions but to me you get paid what the company sets and if your not happy you should leave!