[Closed] Oh look- Union power over nasty selfish greedy company!

So what are you saying?

Well, rampant unchecked Capitalism with no thought for Human Beings' welfare and happiness is, yes.

Don't you?

isn't 7% over 2 years a pay cut, given the 5% inflation rate at the moment
better than my 0% rise over the next 3yrs

Indeed! Or infact my 0% payrise over the last 4 years!

Should be happy they are getting any kind of payrise and still have jobs in this bloody economy.

Ok if the directors / managers are getting hefty payrises / bonuses I could see why they would be peeved!

So what are you saying?

God forbid we should forget about the shareholders is what I'm saying.

Or is it ok to say 'sod the workers I just want more money'?

So what's more important; the workers who work to generate the profit enjoyed by shareholders' happiness and well-being, or just pure profit to benefit the shareholders alone, at the expense of the welfare of the workers?

The workers are often only able to work because of the money invested by the shareholders...

You are posing a loaded question there though elf. No-one is suggesting the welfare of the workers is sacrificed, of course not. That is a straw man. However, how much welfare should they be entitled to? Unions were invented to protect the welfare of the workers, however this can go too far. Workers can get greedy just like anyone else. And before you know it you'll end up like the US car industry.

Re shareholders, if you buy a x% share of a company, you should be entitled to x% share of the profits, should you not?

so with their travel perks they can go on holiday until BA makes more losses and lays a chunk of them off because they are not able to compete in the market.

The only thing they will have to worry about then is which spray tan goes with orange

So what's more important; the workers who work to generate the profit enjoyed by shareholders' happiness and well-being, or just pure profit to benefit the shareholders alone, at the expense of the welfare of the workers?

so with their travel perks they can go on holiday until BA makes more losses

I can't remember quite how it works, but the travel perk doesn't cost BA a lot of money. Obviously you think BA management are so incompetent that they have agreed to something which they can't afford (it was never removed for economic reasons btw) but last October BA reported a half-year profit of £158m. I doubt whether the travel perks will make much dent in that.

Furthermore, the next month (November) BA was fined €104 million for price fixing. If BA can't afford that sort of money, then BA management shouldn't do stuff which lands them fines.

A great example of a useless dispute. Walsh tried and failed to break the union and ended up with pretty much what the union offered before the strikes which was most of his claimed aim(setting aside the union breaking)

Actually TJ, BA has got a lot more out of this than you seem to know. New contracts and working conditions for cabin crew. The unions didn't want this, so they've really been beaten and the last few mexican standoffs have actually been the unions just wanting to save a bit of face and keeping the perks for cabin crew members. That's small change really as it's only standby, so if there ain't seats they don't fly anyway.

I used to work for BA unless its changed the travel is standby so if there's seats you might get on otherwise tough we used to pay 10% of the fare the one good thing used to be getting upgraded to first class I have we used to also get to fly in the jump seat in the cockpit I doubt if that happens now

yeah, cabin crew still got the travel perk, just their ranking in the pecking order for standby seats (if there were less seats than staff wanting to travel) was taken away.

Cabin crew always get upgraded becuase their buddies are flying the plane and it's all nudge nudge wink wink (even above other staff who by rights should get the upgrade first I'm sure)

PP, You could have walked into a lot of jobs after this:

I can honestly say, I'd never ever strike for anything. I'm just not that way inclined. All I can see it doing is shooting yourself in the foot. Mugs game.

You are a perfect employee for UK PLC.

Actually TJ, BA has got a lot more out of this than you seem to know. New contracts and working conditions for cabin crew. The unions didn't want this, so they've really been beaten

Offered by the unions at the beginning of the dispute in large part.

No one wins but the management could have achieved something very similar to this without any strike action at all.

The removal of the travel perk was totally vidictive and designed to escalate and intensify the dispute and is a humiliating climbdown for teh management - as is most of the is settlement.

You are a perfect employee for UK PLC.

He could increase his appeal by insisting that he wants nothing more than the minimum wage.

Something along the lines of : "all I can see that getting more than you need to stay alive is doing, is shooting yourself in the foot" 💡

The workers are often only able to work because of the money invested by the shareholders...

For which they get a return. You are almost saying that the great and the good deemed it necessary to employ you and you should be lucky for it. 😉

He could increase his appeal by insisting that he wants nothing more than the minimum wage.

Well I'm sure that once Gideon has sorted out the employment laws, the minimum wage will be next to be "looked at".

The unions didn't want this, so they've really been beaten and the last few mexican standoffs have actually been the unions just wanting to save a bit of face and keeping the perks for cabin crew members.

I'd never ever strike for anything. I'm just not that way inclined. All I can see it doing is shooting yourself in the foot. Mugs game.

Maybe its different with a big company like BA, but my view is that in times of hardship everyone should pull together to keep the company going rather than do the selfish thing

Would be interested to knwo how much the strike cost BA and how much agreeing to the workeres requests would have cost.
Very short sighted by management IMHO.

molgrips you get more socialist every week 🙄 you may need to give up the social democrat bit if you carry on ... you are stw best gentle troll [ or incapable of holding a principle for a week lets check .... do you stil love your oraange 5 😉

BA employee retraining programme

Would you like anything from the easy kiosk

Funny how the dispute was settled fairly soon after Michael O'Leary wannabe Willie Walsh was no longer deciding the management's approach.

22 days of strike action.
Average BA cabin crew wage is 31k, so they've lost £2500 each on average
Wage rise is 3.5-4% so being generous that's £1250 a year increase.
It's going to take two years to make their money back from BA.

So in 2 years time, BA will have broken even on their wage plan.

Thats why no winners. BA lost millions

Oh I totally agree. It makes a lot of financial sense to agree to the deal and let the workers think they've won. Yep, they have lost millions but that's gone now. Look humble, apologise and agree to the demands, they're not losing anything in wages for two years and they can make themselves look like the caring company.

Thats why no winners.

You've missed the point TJ. Striking is not the only tool which workers have at their disposal. The threat of strike can also be extremely effective. But how effective the threat of strike is, as a negotiating tool, is directly related to how seriously management take it.

A trade union which never strikes is pissing in the wind when they threaten to strike. In the future Unite will find it easier to negotiate with BA, thereby securing settlements for their members without necessarily resorting to strike action.

Despite samuri's 'back of an envelop' calculations, Unite members are likely to feel the benefit of this strike for many years to come.

they're not losing anything in wages for two years

😕 But according to you : [i]"Yep, they have lost millions but that's gone now"[/i]

Are you saying the "millions" BA has lost due to this dispute has made it worthwhile for them ?

Haven't read the whole thread so apologies if it's been posted already, but elfinsafety - if you want to talk about hyprocrites (BA exec pay) how about good old Bob Crow? From Wikipedia:

As of 2009, Bob Crow's basic salary at RMT was £94,747; a 12% increase from the previous year. His entire pay package with bonuses and pensions was £254,978; on top of this he claimed £9,989 in expenses and £2,376 in travel costs, taking his total income to £145,548

tonyd, are you new here?

The rabid frothing hordes will never have anything bad said about anyone or anything to do with a union. Mr Crow is a sainted individual to be praised, apparently, and worth every penny too.

(now, if I may borrow/paraphrase a line from Stoner...)

I've got the biscuits, now where's the socialists?

😉

I've got the biscuits, now where[s]'s[/s] [i][b]are[/b][/i] the socialists?

🙄

Fairly new Cap'n, but I've seen enough of the lefty, pitch fork waving, Thatcher haters to know what you mean 🙂

For which they get a return

And that seems to be resented on here!

You are almost saying that the great and the good deemed it necessary to employ you and you should be lucky for it

Heh - what I am saying is that SOMEONE deemed it necessary to employ them (and me for that matter) and for that we should be grateful.

I find it hard to believe he's in touch with the needs of the people he apparently represents.

Well unless you are a member of RMT, that's not really an issue for you.
In fact, it's got **** all to do with you........ it's not your money.

And if you are a member of RMT, then I suggest you raise the issue next time he comes up for re-election. In the meantime you can also raise it when his pay and condition next comes up for review.

As a footnote, it's probably worth pointing out that in general RMT members appear to be hugely satisfied that Bob Crow is "in touch with their needs".

Darcy, I was channelling Stoner's appallingy educated spelling....! 😉

So Flashy; do you not support the right of workers to be able to join a union, which can represent them against any employer, and who can fight for better pay and conditions? So they don't get treated like crap and exploited unfairly?

Or do you just spout Thatcherite crap without actually thinking about anything that doesn't affect you? Cos you don't demonstrate much knowledge about anything that exists beyond your own tiny sphere of experience...

No sorry Flashy, but you don't. You just come across as really narrow-minded I'm afraid.

You just come across as really narrow-minded I'm afraid.

Jolly good.

I reckon Bob Crow is more in touch with his membership's needs than a lot of union leaders. In fact, I'd go so far as to say he's probably the most in touch. And, compared to most chief execs his salary is still at the lower end. And apparently, his membership is most happy with what he earns - he seems to be worth every penny.

*donates to Bob's paypal account every time flashy froths about him*

but I've seen enough of the lefty, pitch fork waving, Thatcher haters to know what you mean

Guess what son? You're gonna see loads more of it the longer this current load of scum are in government. I'd avoid this forum if you don't like people having views that differ from your own.

Nothing wrong with hating Thatcher at all. In fact, it should be encouraged.

(Checks PA and lighting system, wonders what tunes to play...)

tonyd - Member

Fairly new Cap'n, but I've seen enough ......... to know what you mean

And you've only been here just over a year ? ...........you don't miss much do you ?

Still, welcome aboard......Flashheart could do with the company - it must awfully lonely for him sometimes.

Jolly good.

Easy for you to make glib comments, but not so easy for you to actually answer questions asked of you, eh?

EH?

So be quiet then.

Just so you know tonyd, the one on the left is Elfin,he is smiling cos he is peeing in Ernie's pocket.(something he has obviously has NO previous for.) 🙄

[IMG] [/IMG]

Ah, pictures, is it? Goody!

[img] [/img]

Why is it the Tory Boys can never come up with owt more imaginative than a fictional character off the telly?

and who can fight for better pay and conditions?

Hmm.. Unions should only fight for FAIR pay and conditions imo.

What if 'Fair' = 'Better' or 'Better' = 'Fair' though?

Then that is fair enough 🙂

WTF Elfie ? 😕

I thought this geezer was waiting at the Gates of Hell for her ?

[img] [/img]

She's such tart 😐

Well unless you are a member of RMT, that's not really an issue for you.
In fact, it's got **** all to do with you........ it's not your money.

Guess what son? You're gonna see loads more of it the longer this current load of scum are in government. I'd avoid this forum if you don't like people having views that differ from your own.

As for leaving the forum, I enjoy it mostly so I'll stay if that's OK? Dad.