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

I dare say a whole plethora of nasty bastards will be waiting for Thatchler in Hades.

It will be good when she does pop though; imagine how happy millions of people in Britain will be? I think a National Holiday should be declared to celebrate her passing, with free milk for all children....

this thread certainly isn't the place for me

Bye then.

Nothing wrong with voicing an opinion as far as I can tell. There seems to be an awful lot of that on here.

It is a forum, so that's kind of the point 🙂

It will be good when she does pop though

Come on - gloating over people dying is poor show. Have a heart.

That ths spirit of stw saying nothin gin particualr but wind up your opponents it is the stw way often amusing mainly frustrating
Flashy is as onesided and skewed as some on the left
ps which is it

Nothing wrong with voicing an opinion as far as I can tell.

I'm the one who has a problem with people having differing opinions to mine?

Northwind's summary:
Disasterous chief executive expects staff to pay the price of his failures, and attempts to distract attention from his own mismanagement by being "tough on unions". Fails at both.

Come on - gloating over people dying is poor show. Have a heart.

No.

Why?

tonyd - Member

Nothing wrong with voicing an opinion as far as I can tell. There seems to be an awful lot of that on here.

Go on then.........voice your opinion.

Explain exactly why you think Bob Crow is hypocrite......I would be fascinated to know.

Is it because he doesn't think RMT members should be on a very good wage, whilst he himself receives an excellent one ?

And whilst you're at it, you could perhaps explain why you think taking a quote from the Daily Mail concerning the salary of trade unionists, Bob Crow in particular, is such a good idea ?

Is the Daily Mail a reliable source of information on such matters ? Do you read the Daily Mail a lot to keep yourself informed ?

I'm all ears.

http://www.****/news/article-1302316/Bob-Crows-12-pay-increase-RMTs-militant-leader-pockets-10k.html

Thatcher deserves no sympathy for the number of people whos lives she deliberately wrecked. The damage to this country directly attributable to her is still evident and may never be repaired. " if its not hurting its not working" "Mass unemployment a price worth paying"

However she has dementia and is slowly dying from it. no worse punishment is available

OK, couldn't resist it.

ou managed to pn;y sperate those with a quote most people wait a few posts to contradict themselves ...you now deny this and go all ad hominem on me obviously

Bye then.

Can someone with a brain explain how this is a victory for u-shite?

And Fred, the caveat above excludes you.

Wunundred! 😀

.......once I've flounced off.

So you're going then ? After I asked your opinion concerning Bob Crow because you said you were entitled to it ?

I will never find out why you think Bob Crow is a "hypocrite" ?

You big tease you 😐

Elfinsafety - Member
Wunundred!

Typical Leftie scum, stealing the 100 post.

😉

stealing the 100 post.

Most of our hard labour went into this thread Flashheart........we're entitled to it.

I can see that grammar isn't your strongest point

And just to return to the point of the post - unless I'm mistaken, the removal of free flights for staff was for those who took part in the strike and was not a general removal of the perk for all staff. It was their "punishment" for going on strike.

Trouble will usually follow when you get two opposing people trying to take a hard line and at the end of the day neither side has come out of it looking very good. Nice quick win for the new CEO though.

Most of our hard labour went into this thread

Elfin who are you calling a Tory? Thats a bit strong,we don't do them up here.

@ aracer, nice one 😀

No answer as ever, he know's he's beat.

Someone tell that annoying bloke who glues spoons to bike frames that I really can't be bothered responding to him so he's wasting his time trying to get a rise out of me. Ta.

duckman; I'm calling [i]you[/i] a Tory. What of it? Eh? 😈

Can someone with a brain explain how this is a victory for u-shite?

cynic-al - Member

Can someone with a brain explain how this is a victory for u-shite?

I wonder, could you phrase the question in a way that makes any sense? It'd be a good start.

Northwind - Member
cynic-al - Member
I wonder, could you phrase the question in a way that makes any sense? It'd be a good start.

OK, for teh hard of thinking:

Can someone with a brain explain how this is a victory for u[u]nite[/u][s]-shite[/s]?

That wasn't hard was it?

BTW 17" Ti mmbop on ebay ATM.

Can someone with a brain explain how this is a victory for unite-shite?

Yeah I can

Who keeps voting them in Fred? It's that England place, anything you want to confess to?

Weren't me mate.

anything you want to confess to?

I've done nothing wrong. 😐

Aye, watching that one, it's someone on here that's selling it... Cheers though!

Is it a victory for Unite? Well, yes, on several levels. The most obvious one is that even if you agree the wage settlement's a fairly neutral one (due to lost wages during the strike), that's a victory in itself.

They resisted the idiot Walsh for long enough for him to get a golden farewell and take himself elsewhere, which is a victory- damage limitation's all you can do with a man like that and damage limitation done succesfully is a victory.

They also get arbitration for those who've been sacked, which in all honesty shouldn't be considered a victory since it's simply what should have happened in the first place without any need for union intervention, but it's still an achievement since it was previously refused.

And most of all they get a working relationship back with the company.

It's also a victory for BA of course- some people seem to struggle with that though, victory for the union doesn't have to be a loss for the company. Of course it's not a total onesided thing, BA are still getting a lot of what they wanted (most of which made sense in the first place, and could possibly have been achieved by negotiation)

Cheers.

It's also a victory for BA of course

That was kind of my point...shame that poor little Fred is not able to concede it tho.

That was kind of my point.

Ermm....TJ...do you actually know what the dispute was about?

The dispute originated because BA imposed a reduction on the cabin crew complement on certain routes. They did this since the union refused to negotiate (there is even a video of the vote with people shouting 'no negotiation' on you tube should you wish to find it). Since they wouldn't negotiate, BA imposed the change. Unite subsequently called a strike over the issue. Note that the reduction in crew complement still means they have more cabin crew than the vast majority of airlines. Numerous court cases which went against the union who claimed the change was contractual, whereas BA claimed it was non-contractual. Unite lost....badly, mainly sine the judge ruled that since the union would not negotiate then BA had no choice but to impose the changes - the judgments are online if you look for them.

Outcome of this deal? BAs imposed change in crew complement stands. They also have many crew moved over to new (cheaper) contracts which would never have met union agreement, but since the union weren't negotiating, they happened anyway. Staff have a pay rise which will still give them a net loss taking into account the strike period (if they were in the minority who actually went on strike).

I'm not anti-union, by any stretch, but this lot stuffed it up big time in representing their members. BA were offering better deals than the one just agreed about two years ago, which were rejected by the union since they didn't want to play. Since the dismissals/removal of travel perks were all a side-effect of those strikes, BA got what they wanted. The union members are worse off than they were. And BA lost a shed-load of cash. How have the union helped anyone here?

Northwind - Walsh's 'golden farewell' - he has moved from running BA to running the new company which has come out of the BA-Iberia merger. That is not exactly 'taking himself elsewhere'. He still runs the ship. It's just that it got bigger...

From the BBC report:

The awards are linked to proposed productivity changes, but the exact details are not known at this stage.

8)

Go on lads - keep waving that red flag and tell us how the union won... 😆

Junkyard - Member
you made it very badly indeed .....when I want to make a point I generally make that point
surely it was also a victory for BA management ?
for example

Thanks for your helpful input.

I find it more fun to make folk guess and see Fred ignore me like he always does when pwned.

Zulu-Eleven - Member

From the BBC report...... 8) .... 😆 ....tell us how the union won

Whilst not wishing to deny your obvious gloating at the thought of British workers being shafted, from the same BBC report :

[i]"Pay and perks were at the centre of the bitter dispute which has lasted for almost two years and involved 22 days of strikes."[/i]

In case you hadn't noticed, this dispute ceased to be one about staffing levels and less enhanced pay for new recruits a very long time ago. It had become very much a dispute about the right of BA staff to take industrial action, and be represented by their trade union. And on that at least, there has been a significant achievement.

To remind you of BA's previous position :

[i]"Willie Walsh reinforced his uncompromising reputation by speaking in such absolute terms. When asked if he will restore the travel perks taken away from strikers, he replied: "[b]That will never happen... We have never, never negotiated on these perks and we never will[/b]." [/i]

Willie Walsh was sidelined and taken out of the equation, and BA's position has changed, none of it I feel would have been necessary if BA hadn't been forced to concede. Furthermore sacked staff who were told would not be re-employed now look very likely to be. Other details such as those who were docked pay for being sick, have now been favourably resolved. And there has now also been a reasonable pay offer made.

Yes BA has won significantly on the issues which existed a couple of years ago, and BA cabin will have more workload and new recruits will receive poorer wages, so have a w@nk over that if it excites you so much, but at the heart of Willie Walsh's original aim was to completely smash the unions, in much the same way as others have been, such as in the print etc, ....... and make no mistake about that - it was clear from the start. So on that he doesn't seem to have succeeded - unions are still alive and kicking in BA. I'm far from disheartened.

The PCCC (non union) had the intelligence and the foresight to sign up nearly a year ago to THE EXACT SAME OFFER that BASSA have signed up to today, so I fail to see how that is a "loss"?

BASSA have had a real kicking here. They haven't gained a single, solitary thing they didn't have before they started their misguided actions. On the contrary, what they have lost is substantial:

The introduction of Mixed Fleet that can only, with time as numbers grow, take routes.
A disruption agreement that now tells them what will be happening i.e. doesn't ask for their opinion or 'permission'.
Dismissals due to to puerile and juvenile behaviour, not least from the BASSA hierarchy. Those dismissals that have been to Employment Tribunal will not be rescinded.
Staff travel benefits are in limbo for a long period, they will only be returned after "the acceptance and full implementation of the agreement and the new principles of how we work together".
Volunteer/stand in Cabin Crew (or whatever they will be called) will now be a permanent part of the scenery, thus largely negating any future attempts at cabin crew strikes.
The loss of one cabin crewmember on several fleets.

Whichever way anyone sane looks at it, BASSA-backside-kicked is the obvious picture. And BASSA's pointless hissy fit has gained them nothing except costing the company hundreds of millions and pissing off hundreds of thousands of passenters, many of whom will never fly BA again. Hooray for the unions!

They haven't gained a single, solitary thing they didn't have before they started their misguided actions.

Your claim they would have retained all that they had, had they just complied and rolled on the backs, is quite frankly astonishing. The dispute was instigated by a macho provocative style management precisely with the aim to smash the unions. Willie Walsh clearly saw his role an anti-trade union crusader a la Sir Michael Edwardes.

In the real Britain of today, despite all the bollox spouted by the right-wing press, trade unions have in fact everything stacked against them. Employers can, and do, nearly always call the shots. They will deliberately orchestrate disputes to fit in with their pre-planned strategy. To which trade unions are powerless to do anything other than to respond to the employers agenda - doing nothing is rarely an option which serves the best interests of their members. Something which employers know only too well and exploit to their maximum advantage.

At the beginning of this dispute I was filled with dread as I witness a powerful employer with battle plans ready, itching for a fight with a trade union. I truly believed that I was possibly about to see the complete annihilation of a trade union long established in an industry. To their credit BA cabin staff faced the intimidations and provocations of BA management, and stood by their union and didn't flinch. Indeed at the latest mass meeting to discuss BA's offer, Elton John's 'I'm Still Standing' was played on the PA system.

You might think this represents a defeat for the trade unions, I don't. But the final judges of whether that's the case or not, isn't me or you, it's the members. No one is forced to belong to a union, so if the unions have served their members so badly then they will presumably simply leave. I'm sure they understand the issues involved better than either of us.

I find it more fun to make folk guess and see Fred ignore me like he always does when pwned.

Jeez Spunkyard, I take this a lot less seriously than you think, it's of little consequence to me what folk on here think about me. If you ever meet me in real life (of course you'll say you don't want to) you'll get that.

In any event my question made my point - it was a comprimise for both sides and a victory for neither.

As ever Fred chooses to ignore any difficult/obvious questions, which is a lot easier on the internet than in person. In my view that makes him pwned in my book - he's done it with me a couple of times this week already. Pathetic.

Al - you are ignored because its you with your never ending negativity, trolling and frankly pathetic attempts to put people down all the time.

it's of little consequence to me what folk on here think about me.

That's probably one of the least convincing arguments you have ever made. No one who craves the level of attention which you clearly do, is indifferent to what people think of them.

As ever Fred chooses to ignore any difficult/obvious questions...

I have short list of people who I generally can't be arsed to argue with, I suspect I'm not the only one. You would be surprised how many people in life can't be bothered to justify themselves to people who are of so little consequence to them. Obviously to an attention seeker like yourself, that goes straight over your head.....but take my word for it.

Jeez Spunkyard, I take this a lot less seriously than you think,

it's of little consequence to me what folk on here think about me.

If you ever meet me in real life (of course you'll say you don't want to) you'll get that.

In any event my question made my point - it was a comprimise for both sides and a victory for neither.

Can someone with a brain explain how this is a victory for u-shite?

it was a comprimise for both sides and a victory for neither.

As ever Fred chooses to ignore any difficult/obvious questions, which is a lot easier on the internet than in person.

In my view that makes him pwned in my book - he's done it with me a couple of times this week already. Pathetic.

I challenge the self righteous and those who I know/suspect are spouting crap or advising without any experience to back it up - 2 on here do so more than any others.

Yes of course that will come across as negative. I post plenty of helpful and positive stuff which you are choosing to ignore.

I guess I hope folk here will "get" me, but I don't really care too much, it's mostly a place to have a laugh & exchange useful info - and enough folk appreciate my work.

I guess I hope folk here will "get" me, but I don't really care too much

There you go again, emphasising how little you care what people think. It's almost as if it's very important to you to make that point.

I challenge the self righteous and those who I know/suspect are spouting crap....

That is indeed a noble and heroic mission.

*swoons*

I suppose I do like the attention, I just don't care too much if it's positive or negative.

I'm not meaining to do the whoole "Oooh, look how right on I am", just explain what pushes my buttons.

I just don't care too much if it's positive or negative.

Well stop ****ing arguing then.

I have short list of people who I generally can't be arsed to argue with, I suspect I'm not the only one.

Funny you should say that Ernie, but so do I! 😀

It must be terribly frustrating for those being ignored, to not get any response to their attempts to bait others. Speshly if they've typed out loads of waffle....