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

[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.