Jump to content

Come fly with me!


observer
 Share

Recommended Posts

But not with BA it seems - and Gordie has the nerve to butt in and "deplore" the antics of his Party's paymasters. Well Gordon; the Labour Party was set up to represent the interests of the working class (in the days when they were actually working); following centuries of the rich funding their political interests through the Tory or Whig (liberal) Parties - something that hasn't entirely dissappeared. So, the tradition is, he who pays the piper calls the tune - alas, if it were only the case - why trade union members still fund "new" Labour is amazing, given they get nowt for their money. But back to the BA strike, and reading between the lines, I wondered why Willy Walsh was so determined not to negotiate a settlement, at first I put it down to him wanting to show them who was boss; but I began thinking of ulterior motives - call me a cynic - but could it be that, Willy is playing this out up to an Election at the behest of the Tories?! :shock::?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, striking was the only option for a specific workforce being treated unfairly. Withdrawal of labour hit the owners in their pockets.

 

Today, striking is a load of political posturing that does nothing more than cause upset and inconvenience to a large number of people not responsible in any way for whatever this week's perceived injustice might be. There are no owners to hit - only shareholders, who'll lose three quid in dividends paid some time next year when nobody can remember why.

 

There's no need to ground flights and spoil holidays. Not when there are arbitration services aplenty. It's mean-spirited and it's exactly the kind of bullying behaviour that unions were set up to fight when owners did it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First time I've heard of the freedom to withdraw one's labour and lose one's wages - described as "bullying". :? More a form of masochism I think, and something not done lightly these days. As for the poor inconvenienced customers, they should be directing their venom at the BA management for contractual failiure. However, my point was about the hypocracy of "political" interference in these matters. :roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LP, I agree. However, some people in management forget the lessons of the past. And as in most things these days, the yuppies think they know it all, and experience gets disposed of.

Management fail to sit down and give their proposals and invite comments. They dictate and force the issue. They also downsize companies and leave themselves in a situation where all the work is placed on fewer numbers. So they have then backed both sides into a corner with no room to manoeuvre.

Compromise (the ONLY way forward) is NOT in either sides vocabulary as the problem has gone to far. They then involve ACAS, which with good management wouldn't have been needed.

Common sense is always the answer, but finding it is the problem.

There are NO winners with industrial action unless of course you are French. And I think you will find. that things must have got to a bad state of affairs, for the Union to want to lose its members their wages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First time I've heard of the freedom to withdraw one's labour and lose one's wages - described as "bullying". :? More a form of masochism I think, and something not done lightly these days. As for the poor inconvenienced customers, they should be directing their venom at the BA management for contractual failiure. However, my point was about the hypocracy of "political" interference in these matters. :roll:

 

No, Obs, the situation is that the Unions use the threat of strike action to force issues that could be setted amicably. The individual's right to withdraw his labour has been completely eroded by the political ambitions of large Unions. Now, strikes are only for threatening the general public via the media to create fear and pressurise the management. I stop short of using the term terrorism, but only just.

 

Management respond in kind, threatening jobs, rfusing to listen and here we go again with Joe Public, Mrs Public and all the little Publics losing thier holiday money, claiming from the insurance and stuffing the premiums up yet again!

 

On the other hand, where a group of members have a genuine grievance, they go to their Union rep, who consults and unless there's a political point to be scored or a mass opportunity to profit, back comes the message saying the Union won't step in. Leaving the genuinely exploited workers worse off, because their employer now has the backing of the Union!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me LP; but I'm labouring under the impression that "the workforce" has now had to have two ballots on this, both returning a high count in favour of strike action. Now there may be more civilized (with perhaps less testosterone involved) ways of dealing with industrial relations EG: giving all employees a stake in their company via share holdings or advanced comprehensive planning agreements, signed on a contractual basis; but alas that ain't the real world at the moment. As I've inferred, there's more to this than meets the eye; and it's no coincidence that a General Election is looming in May - QUO BONO?! :?:shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two ballots only apply where the Union is considering action. All too frequently, the Union decides that the issue isn't worthy of its attention. The original premise that the Union stands behind every individual as a source of support has gone by the board as Unions have merged in order to gain block votes and play politics. We have a situation now where a Union is an entity in its own right, not simply a group of people looking out for one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- btw, who's pulling your strings these days?! :roll:

 

If that is addressed to me, I don't understand.

NO-ONE has ever been able to do that. I answer to nobody, and say what I think. That's why I wouldn't get involved with being a councillor. I value my freedom too much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

- btw, who's pulling your strings these days?! :roll:

 

If that is addressed to me, I don't understand.

NO-ONE has ever been able to do that. I answer to nobody, and say what I think. That's why I wouldn't get involved with being a councillor. I value my freedom too much.

 

Must have meant you - he only asks about my footwear and underwear. :lol: Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee - I'll take that as a tribute to my debating skills. That'll upset him! :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...