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

Greedy workers with over-inflated sense of entitlement bang another nail in their own employer's commercial coffin for selfish reasons - yay!

MINORITY of

Greedy workers with over-inflated sense of entitlement bang another nail in BA's commercial coffin for selfish reasons - yay!

FTFY

Looks like you two are going to have to go to ACAS for arbitration. Come along or I'll bang your bloody heads together

Ok so I assume you'll be taking a massive paycut and give up other work-related perks for the benefit of your employers then Molly?

No? Well shoosh then silly boy. 🙄

Greedy workers with over-inflated sense of entitlement bang another nail in their own employer's commercial coffin for selfish reasons

Care to back any of that up with anything meaningful in the way of evidence ?

I was only playing devil's advocate there of course, I don't know the situation.

However, purely hypothetically (ie not related to BA) if my employer was in trouble then yes I would take a pay and benefits cut.

However if my employer was in trouble then yes I would take a pay and benefits cut.

As BA pilots and many other staff did.

Ok so I assume you'll be taking a massive paycut and give up other work-related perks for the benefit of your employers then Molly?

Well, I had to. 20%-ish pay cut last year. Put up and shut up.

@ molgrips you could have just said.............

no.

In all seriousness I know this is a very complicated situation and I would not pronounce on it either way, since I'm not involved.

Well, I had to. 20%-ish pay cut last year. Put up and shut up.

well you could obviously afford it otherwise i guess you'd move on elsewhere, as could

BA pilots and many other staff

those on strike obviously couldn't.

good for them.

Nice payrise on one hand. Productivity changes on another. Everyone's a winner. 😀

Oh right, cos of course the BA bosses are setting an example by taking a salary cut as well, aren't they?

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/oct/27/ba-bosses-post-merger-pay-deals ]

BA chief executive Willie Walsh, who will take on the same post at the enlarged International Consolidated Airlines Group (IAG), will see his pay rise 12% from £735,000 to £825,000 a year, according to investor merger documents. And he could pick up a potential cash-and-shares annual bonus of up to £1.65m if he exceeds performance targets, capped at 200% of base salary.

Keith Williams, chief financial officer of BA, will earn a 43% rise in annual salary from £440,000 to £630,000 when he is promoted to chief executive of BA following the merger. His maximum annual bonus has been set at 150% of salary, or £945,000.

Oh but of course, they worked for nowt the previous month so it's alright then. No?

otherwise i guess you'd move on elsewhere

Why didn't anyone think of that?

those on strike obviously couldn't.

Was this not about travel concessions?

You can afford not to have free flights surely?

isn't 7% over 2 years a pay cut, given the 5% inflation rate at the moment

To one of the many jobs currently flooding the workplace of course.

It's pretty straitforwrad, move elsewhere or fight for your rights. Telling others to get shafted just cos you have doesn't make much sense.

Was this not about travel concessions?

well if it was only about that then why is pay part of the bargain.

of course it could be that the media focus on the travel concessions part of the dispute in order to demonise the strikers.

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)

I hope the shareholders sack Walsh for wasting millions to achieve nothing

Free flights has been a perk at BA for [i]thousands of years[/i]. One of the things that attracted people to work there. And an example of a company doing something nice for it's employees, who collectively generate those huge profits that company enjoyed in the past. Keeping up morale amongst employers, invariably means higher productivity and standards.

Ok, so maybe a limit on the amount of free/reduced cost travel for workers, but to remove the perk altogether was just a nasty move. Good on the workers and Unite for getting their perks reinstated.

Oi, Flashy; I'm assuming you always travel using budget airlines/economy class, stay in the lowest price hotels and spend your own money on food and that, to save your employers money and maximise their profits then? Hmm?

You know you milk it for all you can get so you can shoosh too.

Actually I'm with TJ on this. It all smacks of office politics rather than actual economic concerns.

another nail in their own employer's commercial coffin for selfish reasons

I think we can safely assume that BA can afford this settlement (unless of course you have absolutely no faith in BA management).

Which begs the question why did BA not settle sooner ?

Of course everyone knows that employers very rarely concede to anything unless they have to. Only some people prefer to pretend that's not the case.

well you could obviously afford it otherwise i guess you'd move on elsewhere, as could

If there was jobs I might. Of course, you can't save £50 a month by cancelling the Sky subscription, stopping the nights out, or selling the second car. Oh no. That's too much like bleedin' common sense. 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.

Rant over.

Of course, you can't save £50 a month by cancelling the Sky subscription, stopping the nights out, or selling the second car. Oh no. That's too much like bleedin' common sense

Of course you're working on the assumption that the strikers have those luxuries to give up in the first place.

Nah, I fly BA whenever possible, Fred! Business on long haul, cattle on short.

Hotels tend to be places where I get a corporate rate, which is nice.

Don't like to waste money on work travel.

I fly BA whenever possible, Fred! Business on long haul

Don't like to waste money on work travel.

BA are often the most spensive option. And if you 'don't like to waste money', why aren't you flying 'cattle class' as you call it, on long-haul too?

Hypocrite, that's why.

Not at all, Fred. For the most recent flying I've done, BA have been cheaper overall. (For example, a trip to Barcelona in March was £79 return on BA, which when other fees are included was cheaper than Sleazyjet). Plus a much nicer airline to fly with! Am very glad they've got this sorted out.

Ok I'll let you off then.

Im with PP on this - just because you're current employer isn't in a position to maintain your wages desn't mean you can just up sticks and move elsewhere.

I took a 20% paycut in feb to keep my job, I don't have the option of going to another job in my industry as 15-20% of the industry has folded in the last 3 years. Unless I want to go to Oz that is. I took the cut so the company keeps going. I don't have a union, however I know if all the engineers here had walked out on strike then the company would have folded in no short order and everyone would be screwed.

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.

For the most recent flying I've done, BA have been cheaper overall.

So not only are you a hypocrite, but you're a cheapskate too ?

.

EDIT : Just seen this, [i]"Ok I'll let you off then"[/i] ......wtf ?

Yeah, all well and good, but BA are expecting staff to suck up pay cuts/freezes and no more perks, when their chief execs are getting massive pay increases and bonuses.

So, what sort of message does that send out to the workers? That they aren't valued or appreciated, and just there to generate revenue for shareholders and chief execs to enjoy.

Should never have privatised BA.

Hmm, I wonder who we can blame for that?

Oh......

So not only are you a hypocrite, but you're a cheapskate too ?

Yep. Sipping on a bloody mary (assuming it's a later flight) 😉

Which leads me on to a serious rant about BA.

On my last long haul flight, not only had they run out of Chablis, there was no Tabasco for my bloody mary. NO TABASCO! What kind of tinpot operation are they, eh? 😉

No, that is unacceptable, Flashy, I have to agree.

there was no Tabasco for my bloody mary

I don't know what you're on about mate 😕

Can't see why you need to refer to your other half in those terms either.

😆

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

So these employers who can't afford to keep their employees paid...when times are good and they're back in clover, and the shareholders are getting the dividends (God forbid we should forget the shareholders), will the employees be getting a backdated lumpsum to make up for the "cut"?

You 'aven't seen his other half, Ernie... 😯

God forbid we should forget the shareholders

The ones that gave the company money to help them invest and consequently now own part of it?

Yes, exactly Molly. Like I said, god forbid we should forget them.

Yeah but if you invest in a company, don't you also have a responsibility to ensure decent working conditions for the employees?

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

No, if you RUN a company you have a responsibility to ensure decent conditions. Different.

But what constitutes decent? That is the issue.

When I worked for a company, I thought about the shareholders every morning as I got into my car to trawl off across the country to flog a pile of shite to someone who didn't really want it. If it wasn't for the shareholders' welfare, I'm not sure I could have done it tbh. It's probably the one thing I miss about being self-employed; not having the shareholders to think about. Sometimes, I have to think about my own welfare to motivate myself. It makes me feel dirty and selfish, so it does. 😐

I thought about the shareholders every morning

Did you not think about your own wage? Or did you take that for granted?

Did you not think about your own wage? Or did you take that for granted?

I'm trying to remember. I thanked himself above that there was money left over to pay me after the shareholders had had theirs. My wage was usually the furthest thing from my mind.

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*