BA strike

[Egbert]

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the BA dispute (and I don't pretend to know much about them) if I were in the Unite union right now I would be looking for another union to join. They have now cocked up two strike ballots. Tony Woodley can beat his chest on TV as much as he likes, ranting on about democracy, justice, etc, but the law works on technicalities and if he and his advisers don't know that by now they should not be running a union. These days, unions should be run by professionals - not by shopfloor workers!

[Bazj]

Unions like Unison Unite are now an archaic throw back to all that was bad with the 70's and 80's.

 

Dispite what they may say, the only lever they have is industrial action and the only people they affect is the travelling public (me and you)

 

Industrial action in industries that affect the way we live today should be outlawed, just as strikes by the police etc. are

[observer]

Great idea Baz, and we could just pay them with a big spud! Spartacus must be turning in his grave!

[Bazj]

You may well mock Obs, but the thought of anyones travel plans being hijacked by that twit running Unite is abhorrent.

 

The man is a spiteful and vindictive little Hitler and should be stopped before he wrecks BA for good.

[observer]

Precisely my thoughts about that slimey little Irish git who's in charge of BA! Strikes, like volcanoes are soooo inconvenient!

[AdrianR]

i'm flying with them in June, the first day of strike 4. Personally I am happy that the injunction was granted. As a lawyer I can see why. If I was a unite member I would be asking serious questions as to how they made a mess the second time.

 

As for striking whilst you company is losing millions yet you are best paid in the industry. Sorry dont understand that at all.

[Bazj]

Obs won't see it like that Adrian. He sees the exploited worker and the champion that is UNITE sprinting to their cause to fight the infidel capitalist pigs.....

 

Socialism is great in theory but in practice it always creates empires like the one Woodley is running and with his own hidden agendas to further his ambitions. The bloke is more than happy to justify his triple figure salary by causing maximum disruption to ordinary folk....

 

Walsh is a man trying to run a company in difficult times and sees the people who are paid the most in the industry trying to strike and cause harm to his company. battling fuel prices, recession, ash clouds, government tax and legislation is bad enough but to have to sort out a bunch of lefty militants is one problem too many.

 

Break the union and things will be right for the paying passengers again. Let the union win and this will happen everytime they have a grievance and them what pays their wages (the public) will be the ones to suffer

[observer]

I don't hold any brief for Unite or over paid and evidently legally incompetant TU bosses; but you've hit the nail on the head as to what this is all about - "breaking the Union" - which has imo been Walsh's agenda from the beginning - perhaps he should have employed Poles, they'd be cheaper! As for the hard pressed passengers, switch to other airlines, thought that's why we had competition!

[AdrianR]

But why are the uniosn rising to it. If they have such a strong case why havent they played the moral high ground and offerred ACAS staright away. Why have they put a 20 day strike togther when the staff winced last time with a 3 day strike.

[asperity]

Far from "breaking the union" this looks more like the union trying to "break the employer" which, when you cometo think of it, is seriously short sighted. And yes Obs, competition will come into play when BA is finally driven into the dust. It has happened to huge companies before and the loser ultimately isn't the likes of Willie Walsh but the workers who lose their jobs. The Red Flag will always fly proudly over the job centre.

[Lt Kije]

Not saying the strike is right or wrong, but the problem with Baz and asperitys view of the world is that as an empoyee you should expect to be exploited

[Bazj]

Not saying the strike is right or wrong

 

Well another concise and forthright view then Kije.... typical sandal wearer always bleating about something while not offering a suitable solution.

 

Just for the record, please explain to me how BA cabin crew (currently the most highly paid in the world and recievers of the best away from home packages going) are being exploited

 

You work away from home as did I many years ago when I had a proper job. My accomodation consisted of staying in someones spare bedroom because that is all that was affordable under JIB rules and allowances at the time. I bet you don't get the same standard of accomodation and pay while you are away as these crew do.

 

Cabin crew for the likes of Emirates and the like only earn a 1/4 of what the BA staff do.....

 

BA staff are not exploited Kije; they are pampered and if they don't get a grip and realise what a good screw they are actually on, they will be out of a job by the summer.

[observer]

As we are not yet quite returning to the age of slavery, I believe the civilized conventions are that both employees and employer agree a contract of employment, and that any wish by either side to renage on their commitments therein, should be the subject of negotiation and ultimately mutual agreement. Mr Walsh wished to change manning levels on certain flights, but didn't find any mutual agreement. The fact that BA are better paid than other Airlines, owes more to the past effectiveness of their Union, and the bovine nature of workers in other airlines. As for the intervention of the law; from the case of the Tolpuddle martyrs on, I can't recall a case of the courts not finding in favour of the establishment against the peasants, and the current legal semantics are no exeption.

[asperity]

Obs and LtKije are not living in the real world it seems. I work in an industry (Merchant Navy) which has had to face up to the realities of the real world in the last 45 years. The rest of the world has caught up and are giving better service at lower cost than the UK resulting in us having to change our expectations. The airline industry is in an even more competitive environment. Talk of slavery is plain stupid. If trained personnel in BA can find better paid employment in rival worldwide airlines then let them go and take it! There's nothing stopping them! The truth is they wouldn't find the grass greener on the other side. Grow up boys and open your eyes to reality! And that goes for UNISON too

[observer]

Your right about the fiscal realities Asp; especially in the context of our new period of austerity (something our Town Hall Unions are going to have to learn): BUT, Unions arn't some single entity, they are a collective of individuals who, like everyone else, have financial commitments of their own - and the natural instinct is to protect one's standard of living, something that can be better attempted when organised than not organised. It may be futile in the end, but one has the choice of being a lion or a lamb in life!

[asperity]

In the case of UNITE the union is not looking out for the welfare of the members, they are trying to impose their will on a commercial enterprise with no regard to the consequences of their actions i.e. loss of revenue leading to downsizing or even failure of the enterprise with the consequent loss of employment for the union members who the union claim they are protecting. Common sense should dictate that the airline and the workers come to a mutually beneficial agreement which will lead to greater profit and enlargement of the enterprise. I know you despise the profit motive Obs, but without a profit who is going to bother starting a business in the first place!

[observer]

Excuse me Asp; but if you read my post - I said that normal civilized behaviour (common sense) requires "mutual agreement" - so no disagreement on that one. As for who's to blame, methinks that little Irish git, wants to impose HIS will on the workforce - hence the impasse. And I've never been of the opinion that reasonable "profit" is a bad thing - just obscene profit. If we ever grow up in these matters, someone may offer workers shares in their respective companies, thus locking their interests into the fortunes of their company.

[Eagle]

Obs, are the facts that he is Irish and little of importance to you?

[observer]

of no tangible importance, just merely descriptive!

[asperity]

Who is to say what size of profit is reasonable and what size is obscene? As for Mr Walsh trying to impose his will on the workforce, well surely that is his job as boss?

[wolfie]

I think he was also trying to impose his will on the public until he got caught price fixing.

 

Wasn't it Walsh that also said

 

 

Being the CEO is great," says the boss of British Airways with a chuckle. "You get all the credit. And you get to blame other people when things go wrong.

[asperity]

Sounds more like Gordon Brown's philosophy

[inky pete]

I believe the civilized conventions are that both employees and employer agree a contract of employment, and that any wish by either side to renage on their commitments therein, should be the subject of negotiation and ultimately mutual agreement. Mr Walsh wished to change manning levels on certain flights, but didn't find any mutual agreement.

 

I for one have never seen manning levels form part of an individuals contract of employment. Deciding on how many bodies are needed to do a job to a satisfactory standard is one of the primary roles of a manager.

 

Being asked to achieve more work with fewer people is part of life. And in this case, insisting upon sticking to old manning levels when more modern aircraft are specifically designed to be operated by fewer crew is just silly.

 

Reminds me of the print unions in the Fleet St days - whatever happened to them?

[asperity]

I presume that there are statutory minimum manning levels for commercial aircraft. There certainly are for ships.

[inky pete]

Minimum cabin crew set by the UK CAA is 1 cabin crew member per 50 seats installed on a narrow body and one per exit on a wide body but still complying with 1 per 50 seats, which ever is greater. The FAA and ICAO rules are pretty much the same.

 

BA has traditionally flown at a ratio of between 1 per 25 to 1 per 33 seats - and usually have relief cabin crews on flights much in excess of 8 hours. So a 10 hour BA flight could have as many as 4 times the CAA minimum number of cabin crew on board.

 

Design features incorporated in the latest aircraft enable passengers to be served their meals, duty free etc by numbers of cabin crew not far in excess of the CAA minimums -and every seat taken up by a crew member is not just cost, it's lost revenue too. Hardly surprising that BA want to trim out some of the excess fat.