[Closed] BAA to strike over a measly 1% pay rise..

If a company is making a large profit 'can we have a pay rise please'?

A company is making a loss 'we are owed a payrise- give it to us'.

[i]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? [/i]

I agree. Considering BAA are losing money, any pay rise is a good pay rise.

I'm prepared to be corrected, but when was the last time a strike was anything but pointless?

project
Well spotted only people with jobs can strike you are really testing your brain today aren't you? oops spoke to soon
Unions REPRESENT workers they do not lead them the members voted ont he issue not the officials.
Unions are not trying to bankrupty companies wil BAA be bankrupt and out of busness if it pays it staff more wages than the current offer? No it is actually profitble. The extreme the employer can do what they want and all unions want to do is bankrupt comapnies is right wing hysteria not supported by the evidence. A more moderate approach from both sides is needed.

MS - that would work if there was full employment -as there is a large pool of unemployed then its not a free market - its rigged in favour of the employers.

As a result of the pool of unemployed there is no pressure on employers to improve pay and conditions to attract workers thus "the market" does not work freely

one of my assessors at work started as an apprentice back int day ! and describes how those bleating strike or no overtime this week were usually the ones coming in doing the work or the overtime when everyone else was striking earning plenty dosh for it - SCABS

i share views similar to MS but i think thats because we work in a well regulated industry that pays better than most

if i was a fireman/nurse/carer etc i would be fighting for more pay to - in my eyes they deserve alot more than they get.

oh and striking over 3.50 a week on a 20k average wage ...

Hora - you know we're talking about BAA, not BA?

From BBC News

Unite is also calling for staff to receive a £450 bonus, which had been promised to them if the company had met a certain earnings target.

BAA, which is owned by Spain's Ferrovial, missed the target by 3%. However, Unite said staff deserve financial recognition for coming so close.

Since when do you get reward for not hitting targets? Isn't that what targets are for? I used to work in sales and we had targets. 100%, 101%, 102% and so on, we never got anything extra for hitting 99%.

A bonus is a bonus for hitting target+, its not guarenteed pay.

TJ - It isn't a free market precisely because the unions increase pay over levels at which the free market would state the job is worth. The unemployment pool makes no difference.

On a related note, full employment economy is a dead one as there is no space for growth.

[i]Unite is also calling for staff to receive a £450 bonus, which had been promised to them if the company had met a certain earnings target.

BAA, which is owned by Spain's Ferrovial, missed the target by 3%. However, Unite said staff deserve financial recognition for coming so close.[/i]

Yeah, that is b0l0cks. Missed the target, missed the bonus, fair's fair

However, Unite said staff deserve financial recognition for coming so close.

That is flippin' ridiculous.

think the volcano was the fault [lost 40 million + due to reduced flights] rather than the workforce performance. Perhaps a compromise figure/offer would have been a nice gesture [£200?} to compensate for the 0% wage rise and fail that was beyond the control of the workforce [and employer to be fair]? Perhaps if the employer was reasonable the employees would be?

If it was the employees fault a fair point but it is always best iof both sids are reasonable.

Due to fly out on holiday from Glasgow on the 23rd.

I'll murder someone if this strike interferes with it in any way.

Me too - Fly from Aberdeen on the 26th and Heathrow on the 29th 🙁

Compromise for something that's completely out of BAAs control, so the staff can still have their bonus?! Christ, that's really is a piss take.

I heard mention of contractual changes on the news which I guess is the main concern of the staff.

As for TJ's assertion that if your company makes fat profits the staff should all get big pay rises - what a load of shite. Whilst staff should reap some reward you can't give big pay rises based on one year's results (unless the staff are happy to accept pay cuts if profits fall or a loss is made) and you quickly increase your fixed costs meaning the business becomes uncompetitive. PRP, bonuses and share schemes are better ways to reward staff for the success of the business (although not following the banks model...) not with pay rises, pay should largely be determined by supply and demand.

Perhaps a compromise figure/offer would have been a nice gesture [£200?} to compensate for the 0% wage rise and fail that was beyond the control of the workforce [and employer to be fair]? Perhaps if the employer was reasonable the employees would be?

Why should they pay out? Not the employers fault. If i hadn't sold x because places were on shut down, i couldn't just say "they were shut, can i still have some more money". Its crap.

yes compromise is always out of the control of one of the two parties involved 🙄
Negotiation therefore offer something? bet the strile costs more than paying a partial bonus.
If both sides want to take entrenched positions re the full bonus/no bonus then a strike will ensue and both sides will be worse off.
Skiprat yes it is not the employers fault but it is not the employess fault either [as I have already said] so they probably feel annoyed that weather cost the money and a token gesture could have avoded all of this. Once bioth sides draw a line in the sand and defend this conflict/strike/strife ensues.

Just to add some 'flavour' of perspective: We really are pretty spoilt in this country.

I sometimes wonder why else would there be an influx of hard working Europeans/foreign nationals... 😐

I act as the Deputy FOC for the Union chapel we have at work so I am fairly qualified to say that there is some bloody ignorance on this thread!

Wage award is about 1% of the things we have to deal with as an elected official. Protecting our members rights are an often occurance when employers chance there luck and bear down with completely unreasonable demands with all the time and resources at their fingertips. I've seen people fall geniunly very ill and close to suicide when on the reciving end of bully managment, and who do you turn to if not the union when its one employee v's the weight of an organisation and the threat of your job.
If you dont belive it happens, and that all employes are fair and honest then you need to pull your bloody head out of the sand.

Just leave and find another job? Are you for real? really?

On the up side, we have a very good relationship with the managment. We hold a joint standing consultaion once a month and discuss any issues within the buisness. Working together we have by and far bettered working practice, efficiancy, reduced waste to almost zero, and this year so far have a sickness record of 0.2% an absolutly outstanding achivment for such a large workforce.

Our chappel arnt stupid, we know that profitability secures us all a job, and that you cant resist technology as it moves forward, sometimes putting people out of work, progress cannot be stoped and fighting it will just ensure a quick end to the buisness. What we do is ensure everyone is treated fairly and gets a fair deal.

that's really is a piss take

I know...but we are from a certain age where we dont 'remember' what happened in Longbridge etc.....we just need to go back and read the anecdotes from that era to be utterly gobsmacked at the mechanics of human thinking.

One that struck me was the production line was running better and smoother, meaning the team(s) employed in the small dent and damage section were facing losing their jobs. It was decided a Union Official would ensure they kept their jobs by walking along the production line 'creating' work for them with a hammer.

Some people actually believe they are OWED a living and pay regardless of what input they are making.

Compromise should never be out of control of both parties because the nature of compromise is that it's required to move on when there is a difference of position. If one party is not prepared to compromise theirs becomes a static demand which is anti compromise.

If either party is not prepared to compromised there is no basis for negotiation.

I'd like to hear the opinion of those that are prepared to strike when they're put out by others striking such as rail workers or fireman. Would guess the level of sympathy would be low, and a blanket point that "their position is different to ours" as justification.

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.

The difference between having representation and not. Why aren't you banging on the door for a pay rise? That's right, you don't have a union.

It's holding the nation at large to ransom due to petty greed.

Greed? Compared to who around here? You should swap the word union with shareholder.

You should swap the word union with shareholder

Someone invests their savings and expects a return.

I imagine union members could save their dues and put the money in shares instead.

You'd be ****ing better off wouldnt you.

end of the day, by striking their ****ing over Joe bloggs, c+nts

Oh, and for the record, I do think that unions can and do do some good. But striking is an extension and a flexing of muscles too far. If the unions are unable to negotiate a good enough position without striking then they are either utilising the wrong people and mechanisms to do so, or their demands aren't reasonable.

Things have moved on a long way since the 70s and 80s...

Skiprat yes it is not the employers fault but it is not the employess fault either [as I have already said] so they probably feel annoyed that weather cost the money and a token gesture could have avoded all of this. Once bioth sides draw a line in the sand and defend this conflict/strike/strife ensues.

I know Junkyard, it just hacks me off that we've saved to go away on our "what we think is our last big holiday before we have kids" and it might all fall apart because of them. Thing is, if they hadn't striked before, would they of hit target and got their bonus??

FG - Member

TJ - It isn't a free market precisely because the unions increase pay over levels at which the free market would state the job is worth. The unemployment pool makes no difference.

Piffle. Unemployment clearly acts as a mechanism to drive down wages

if there was no large pool of unemployed the employers would have to compete with each other to attract staff on the basis of pay and terms and conditions. As there is the large pool of unemployed the employers do not have to compete for staff so can set wags as low as they can.

.
In freemarket terms there is an oversupply of labour - supply outstrips demand so price ( wages) fall. Unfortunatly the usual freemarket mechanisms of the over supply being soaked up by increased purchasing ( jobs) due to teh price fall does not work as there is a fixed number of jobs. Thus prices (wages) are permanently forced down so long as there is an oversupply of labour.

You can only have a free market in a perfect market. As there is no way of reducing supply (number of workers) in the labour market the free market does not work

The difference between having representation and not. Why aren't you banging on the door for a pay rise? That's right, you don't have a union.

Maybe he accepts market rate?

Oh, and for the record, I do think that unions can and do do some good. But striking is an extension and a flexing of muscles too far. If the unions are unable to negotiate a good enough position without striking then they are either utilising the wrong people and mechanisms to do so, or their demands aren't reasonable.

Why am I finding you balanced and sensible today ante?

pk-ripper - Member

Oh, and for the record, I do think that unions can and do do some good. But striking is an extension and a flexing of muscles too far. If the unions are unable to negotiate a good enough position without striking then they are either utilising the wrong people and mechanisms to do so, or their demands aren't reasonable.

Things have moved on a long way since the 70s and 80s...

Or the management is unreasonable - see Walsh and the BA strike. The workforces offered 90% of what he wanted but he refused -= to provoke a strike and there has been disquitet from the board over the way it was handled.

i see both sides of the argument here as an employee facing a ballot for strike action because of pension cuts in our workplace.

I have heard the line "if you dont like it then leave" iterated by a senior manager here as a justification for the changes they are making and frankly it annoys me. Whats next, no more paid hols, a 1% pay cut, then 5%, then 10% etc? Work for a pound a day. No? Well if you dont like it then leave - its an extreme example but i hope you see my point.

As TJ alluded to the market economy should be a balance - fair reward for your skills. If those skills are valuable to an employer you should be rewarded for offering them the chance to make money out of you.

TJ - well it is a free market and logically if wages fall to their market level then more employment will come along to use it - more jobs become viable. Trouble with that is things are distorted by the minimum wage and the benefits system so the free market rate is never hit at the bottom end so unemployment will always exist as there's a minimum people will accept.

If the unions are unable to negotiate a good enough position without striking then they are either utilising the wrong people and mechanisms to do so, or their demands aren't reasonable.

I'm unclear what bargaining position a labour force really has other than the threat of witholding its labour.

This boils down to "ask nicely, and if we tell you to eff off then that's the end of the matter".

due to fly out to africa on tuesday - and id pay someone for some interfearance 😉

Tj, with ba they were a long way from 90%, and the pay and conditions were and are significantly above their competitors. Ba is making a substantial loss year on year. Ww and the company directors are tasked by the shareholders with making the company profitable. If they are unable to do this, there is no company unless they're owned by man city.

So, according to some people, no-one should strike and workers should just bne happy to accept whatever conditions are imposed? Would these be the same people who believe that the ublic sector should be nationalised and opened up to market forces? A bit like privatising key parts of the transport infrastructure, like, um, BAA?
And to those people who think there's something to be proud of in not being considered worthy of a pay rise, maybe if you and your colleagues were to join together to provide a united front to the employer and using your combined strength as one of the core assets of the business to gain a stronger negotiating position. There is a word of this type of group. It's called a union.

Executive pay at BAA has doubled over the past couple of years yet over the same time the lower paid workers had a pay freeze then a 1% pay rise (which in real terms is a paycut considering the rate of inflation). If BAA is suffering financially then executive pay and bonus should reflect that just as much as that as those lower down on the corporate scale.

I can never understand why there is such venom and dislike always reserved for average working person striking over pay and conditions? Why are these people the focus for such ire yet on the other end of the business in the boardroom then the people there can seem to do as they please - and if someone raises any comment about that then is just often dismissed about the politics of envy or something similar. Why is the redistribution of wealth only acceptable when it is going towards people already on 6 or 7 figure salaries?

1% ? FFS!

What you want is 12% a la Comrade Crow -> http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=511818&in_page_id=2

PK - sorry - the union starting offer gave the management 90% of the savings they wanted. That was the union starting offer.

There certainly has been disquiet from the board over the handling of the dispute as Walshes intransigence has cost the company millions.

you realise that what has been offered now is almost the unions starting position. The sticking point is now the victimisation of union reps.

If What has been offered now was offered at the beginning there would have been no strike.

rail_rat - Member

if i was a fireman/nurse/carer etc i would be fighting for more pay to - in my eyes they deserve alot more than they get.

My wife and I thank you.

Would these be the same people who believe that the ublic sector should be nationalised and opened up to market forces

no - stupidest thing ever that would be ....

bad as that crook Bob Crow giving himself a 10% pay rise

[i]TJ - well it is a free market and logically if wages fall to their market level then more employment will come along to use it - more jobs become viable. Trouble with that is things are distorted by the minimum wage and the benefits system so the free market rate is never hit at the bottom end so unemployment will always exist as there's a minimum people will accept.[/i]

If it were a free market, then once wages fell beneath a minimum level, and there was no benefit system, then people would equally logically turn to theft. Of course it wouldn't be theft in a free market, because by default any law will distort a truly free market, so I guess it would just be called non consensual wealth acquisition 🙂
See somalia for a classic example of a real free market economy.

Sadly like thatcher, unions need to be sidelined as a rather sad and nasty piece of history, all down to political interferance.

You go to work and earn what the market is capable of paying, you buy a car with what you can afford, or we would all be driving round in bmw,s

timc - Member
end of the day, by striking their ****ing over Joe bloggs, c+nts

But striking is an extension and a flexing of muscles too far. If the unions are unable to negotiate a good enough position without striking then they are either utilising the wrong people and mechanisms to do so, or their demands aren't reasonable

Trouble with that is things are distorted by the minimum wage and the benefits system so the free market rate is never hit at the bottom end so unemployment will always exist as there's a minimum people will accept.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have a payrise or be paid fairly for their work but right now i'm waiting to see whether or not i can go on my holiday that my wife and i have saved long and hard for. No i don't think management should get huge rises out of line with the rest of the workforce, but nor do i think that they should hold the rest of the UK to its knees. If people can't fly back to the UK, kids could miss school, teachers miss days of work and children working towards their education will miss stuff. Multiply this for weeks on end and they're just stopping the UK. Extreme examples maybe but the Uk's going downhill and things like this just increase problems.

Times are hard throughout the UK at the moment. Why not be like the rest of the work force in the UK and grit your teeth and get on with it. Why not wait til BAA is making more money (running at a profit) and strike then, stopping the fast flow of ready money comming in? Bit like the fuel protests when the prices went sky high.

You go to work and earn what the market is [s]capable[/s]able to get away with paying

Oh, and for the record, I do think that unions can and do do some good. But striking is an extension and a flexing of muscles too far. If the unions are unable to negotiate a good enough position without striking then they are either utilising the wrong people and mechanisms to do so, or their demands aren't reasonable.

Things have moved on a long way since the 70s and 80s...

Yes they have moved on from the 70' 80's, unions don't strike for little reason nowadays because of the financial implications of doing so.(RMT being the exception of course) Blaming the unions solely is a bit silly as it takes two to tango.

Maybe he accepts market rate?

How would you define market rate? "Boss our profits are up can I have a pay rise? No. If you don't like it you can f*ck off." I remember when Human resources used to called personnel. But now you are just another "resource" to be used up and thrown away as and when required.

It seems to me that people attacks on the unions here are borne out of jealousy, that someone may be getting a better pay deal than you. You are all "individual" and vulnerable to whatever demands your employer sets for you, unreasonable or otherwise within the law...which incidentally can be changed by industry whispering in the ears of politicians.

Yet you still attack the unions, remembering the bad old days of the 70's where they were powerful...yes they were too powerful, those days are gone. But it's now swung the other way with employers having too much power...which is why unions came about in the first place.

And they could return, barring the typical UK citizen apathy for accepting that "Sh*t happens" to them.

EDIT: Boy this is a bit ranty! 😀

It seems to me that people attacks on the unions here are borne out of jealousy, that someone may be getting a better pay deal than you.

I'm not jealous of their better pay deal or want a union to fight my corner, i just want to be able to go on my holiday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If a fireman, sorry person strikes, they put cover on to make sure we're still looked after (as best as they can) but man the baggage machines and people at airports so people like me can still go away and they get their knickers in a right twist saying its not right. Its just wrong.

Sorry not read it all, but I did hear on Radio 4 last night some lefty rep saying that not only was 1% not enough as the cost of living exceeded 1%, they also beleive BAA should pay bonuses. When the presenter commented that BAA made a loss last year, he should shunned it and said 'we should still vote only accepting a bonus payment'

I would never ask for a pay rise just because my company was doing well; I would ask for it only if I could show that I was being less than I thought another company would pay me - probably based on approaches from agents. But then again I'm far more interested in job satisfaction than pay so my opinion is irrelevant.

There certainly has been disquiet from the board over the handling of the dispute as Walshes intransigence has cost the company millions.

There are plenty of suggestions the only reason Walsh got the job was to handle the unions. He is an ex-union rep himself for pilots so he knows the score. He'll get a nice payoff when he succeeds in sorting out the cabin crew.

In freemarket terms there is an oversupply of labour - supply outstrips demand so price ( wages) fall. Unfortunatly the usual freemarket mechanisms of the over supply being soaked up by increased purchasing ( jobs) due to teh price fall does not work as there is a fixed number of jobs. Thus prices (wages) are permanently forced down so long as there is an oversupply of labour.

TJ - That's my point though - The unions are a barrier to the free market not the unemployment itself. In a free market as you say the price of labour would decrease with unemployment. The unions aren't letting this happen but if they did, more jobs could be created and so the unemployment decreases.

Erm, what unions are stopping this from happening? And why are we continually accepting a downgrading in our terms and conditions?

FG - you miss the point. The supply ( of labour) is fixed therefore no freemarket as supply of labour cannot be decreased.

Fro a freemarket to work you need all the variables - supply, demand and price to be flexible.

Jeezo - i can't believe that I have to explain how a freemarket works! and how many folk who believe in the freemarket don't understand it.

If there was no pool of unemploymed and an employer wanted to take on new staff he would have to pay enough to attract them from another job. Thus the employers would be competing with each other for employees which would force wages up.

However as there is a pool of unemployed the employer is not competing with other employers so there is no pressure to make wages rise.

Employment is not a free market as there is no way of reducing the supply of labour. If we shot the unemployed then it would function as a free market.

Education sector will not be getting any pay rises for the next two years.

Erm, what unions are stopping this from happening?

And prey tell how a union stops employers from recruiting from teh unemployed at minimum wage?

A 1% pay rise is effectively a pay cut, and the unions are striking to get a better offer.

Let me re-phrase that: A 1% pay rise is effectively a pay cut, "A" union is striking to get a better offer.

TJ - your scenario is as unstable as mine! 😉

Maybe there shouldn't be unions, maybe there should be an independent central body that agrees these things when they're disputed - kinda like ACAS but you let them decide the outcome based on suggestions from the interested parties.

And prey tell how a union stops employers from recruiting from teh unemployed at minimum wage?

And prey tell how a union stops employers from recruiting from teh unemployed at minimum wage?

Don't the unions influence pay bands?

Unions r saracin

Maybe there shouldn't be unions, maybe there should be an independent central body that agrees these things when they're disputed - kinda like ACAS but you let them decide the outcome based on suggestions from the interested parties.

There are plenty of suggestions the only reason Walsh got the job was to handle the unions. He is an ex-union rep himself for pilots so he knows the score. He'll get a nice payoff when he succeeds in sorting out the cabin crew.

Congratulations - you just invented Gosplan.

Yeah but it's not really the same thing now is it?

Yeah but it's not really the same thing now is it?

I am totally fed up of all these people causing grief for others, we have our honeymoon on the 30th Aug. flying from Heathrow to LA and really looks like going to be ruined. I mean what do they want from a company that is losing money, I had no pay rise this year Wife did and bonus but who cares we all have to suffer slightly in this market. To be truthful we are hardly suffering but that’s not the point.

FFS I'm sick of people who can afford to fly abroad for holidays moaning about other people trying to get as good a deal for themselves as possible.

FFS I'm sick of people who can afford to fly abroad for holidays moaning about other people trying to get as good a deal for themselves as possible

I'm sorry Mrs skip and i have worked bloody hard for our trip of a life time. Why shouldn't we spend our money on things we want when we've worked for it? Like i said before Mrs S works in the NHS so isn't on huge wages for all the hard work she and others in the service do. Bet you splash the cash on your bikes tho don't you or do you ride a Motorworld £59 special?? 😉

No? Didnt think so. I wont stop you spending your money and getting your goods so why should i pay for my holiday and then not have it because of them?

Rant over.

I've got a lot of sympathy for people who's travel plans are going to get screwed but I do have sympathy for the strikers. 1% is a paycut. I know times are tough but it's not right employers bully the employees into earning less (usually expecting them to do more) because they're an easy target. I'd like to see companies taking the same approach with ohter rising costs, e.g. no Mr electicity supplier I don't think I will pay your cost increases this year, the company can't afford it.

Any half decent management team will look for sustainable cost reductions funded through genuine efficiencies, not cost cutting or just refusing cost of living rises. Mind you they need to start doing this when things are going well, it's far to late when things turn bad, unfortunately most British managers don't seem to be able to see beyond the end of month figures and hey the good times will last forever because they, the management team have made things good and how could they possibly be wrong.

I just lost my job a few months ago after 16 years, basic story was sign a new contract or have your existing one terminated. I refused to sign. The new contract required me to do 5 hours extra work a week for significantly less money, the closure of the company pension, the company having the right to ask you to do 4 hours overtime a week, the first 4 hours overtime in any week to be paid at basic pay, no work, paid or unpaid to be done outside of work, removal of a guaranteed working week, i.e if your machine breaks down they can send you home with no pay, basically our union official said it was the most draconian contract he'd seen in 30 years. Anyway the union organised a series of one day strikes, but the MD had seen all this in advance and had been planning the contract change for a few months so stocks were built up in advance and the strike was undamaging to no one but us employees, the MD had also exploited every employment law he could to get these changes in nothing he had done was illegal. The union realised this and as a result told everyone to sign because there was nothing they could do, they also stated in no uncertain terms that anyone not signing the new contract would have no support from the union. I didn't sign cos i wasn't gonna take it up the harris anymore, luckily i found a new job in a few weeks. My point is that the unions are ultimately powerless these days and as such i wont be joining one again, i guess the BAA workers are exploiting the fact that it will all be high profile and very damaging to the companies public image to get what they see as their dues. I personally didn't see the point of us striking but did it through a sense of solidarity which was sadly misplaced in the end. We live in a democracy and striking, protesting, voicing your opinions etc is part of that. End of essay ha ha.

Don't worry The Doog, in the perfect future world of STW all business will be run this way.

I just lost my job a few months ago after 16 years, basic story was sign a new contract or have your existing one terminated.

How does that work then? You can be sacked like this?

Mrs Skiprat here....

I do feel sorry for people who have been hit by the recession and yes it is not on that people are expected to be demoted or do alot more work for less pay but....at least they have still got a job!! I think we should all remember that there are plenty of people out there who have lost their jobs and would be thankful to get a wage.. whilst other people think it is their right to be given bonuses

[img] [/img]

Yup, he did it on a 30 day notice kinda deal, all perfectly legal in todays employee friendly world. I'm not moaning though, it was the kick up the arse i needed to go do something else, i got a relatively decent payout. It was the underhanded tactics that got me and the unions lack of any kind of recourse. I summed it up to a mate the other day, i was there 16 years, in that time we had about 10 different managers, all the same person in a different body, suit and tie, that kind of goobledegook only managers talk, blue sky thinking this, lets brainstorm that kinda bullshit, and everyone of them would tell us all how mind blowingly good they were in their old jobs. Why aren't you still there then i'd frequently ask. In my new job my manager refuses to be called a manager and is on the shop floor covered in oil and muck like the rest of us and he knows the job inside out.

I do feel sorry for people who have been hit by the recession and yes it is not on that people are expected to be demoted or do alot more work for less pay but....at least they have still got a job!!

Thats a good point, its crap people are out of work and can't find work but to expect employed people to take it in the ass becuase 'hey, least you've got a job' is a bit of a poor do. If employed people dont hang on to what they've got then when the employment market picks up emloyers will just employ people for the minimum amount of everything knowing they can do this ad infinitum because no one will dare complain.

....we should all remember that there are plenty of people out there who have lost their jobs and would be thankful to get a wage.

Yup.

And the government is determined to make a whole lot more people unemployed ...........which should obviously lead to a whole lot more people being [i]"thankful"[/i].

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

How terribly British.