By: Sky High
- 30th March 2011 at 09:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Surely no more blind than the 250,000 who marched at the weekend. Either peope are cocooned from reality or the government needs to do more to explain the economic reality. Or probably a bit of both.
By: kevinwm
- 30th March 2011 at 18:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I can't believe we're hear again either, but since we are. I really cannot believe that this dispute has still not been resolved. Certainly since the last time I posted, the overall economic situation in the country has got worse, despite the propaganda peddled by "The Ministry of Truth" this is irrefutable. Yet against this background, people are still prepared to countenance industrial action.
I honestly, and without malice aforethought, would like someone better informed than I, to please illustrate the justification, and the motivation behind, the actions of the individuals pushing for possible industrial action. My own opinion is that for some reason, the union leaders and its members still appear to be blind to todays economic reality. I know I've mentioned this before, but I just don't get it. I find it incredible that these union leaders and their members, who must, like the rest of us, see and hear almost on a daily basis about the seemingly constant stream of redundancies and company closures, can even consider industrial action at this time.
Its not about economics its a power battle, the Unions want to Run BA like they have in the past ,pure and simply and the BA Management aren't going to let them
By: MSR777
- 30th March 2011 at 20:02Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its not about economics its a power battle, the Unions want to Run BA like they have in the past ,pure and simply and the BA Management aren't going to let them
I disagree. It is too simplistic to exclude economics from the argument. As far as BA is concerned, it is very much a case of economics, and of their struggle to adapt to the new playing field. It may very well be simply a power battle on the part of the unions 'Politburo' but in the end that won't matter. These members need BA more than BA needs them, fact. In the good 'ol days, when BA was a state owned behemoth, economics was a dirty word and being fired was virtually unheard of, in that cosy world of 'jobs for life'. Most of us out here have had to change our attitudes and aspirations in terms of our careers, we may not like it, but there it is. Now, the Union leaders appear to be unable (or unwilling) to come to terms with the current state of industrial relations, so be it, but surely some of the membership can see where this is all heading. I have been a committed Socialist for near on 35 years, and have myself been involved in industrial action back in the mid 80s, but I can see the writing on the wall for these potential strikers, and so can most of us out here if we're honest. I'm quite prepared to be labelled an apologist for BA and Mr. Walsh, and if that is what my post implies, then I'll have to be guilty as charged, although I will still think it a little unfair! There are an awful lot of unemployed young, willing and educated people out there. I think that the question that these potential strikers should be asking themselves, is wether they are prepared to drive their employer into the arms of cheap labour, and thereby the practices that go with it, by their refusal to see things as they really are. And would that scenario in the end, not be down to economics?
By: kevinwm
- 30th March 2011 at 20:43Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have to agree with a lot of what you say ,I think in BA position its about economics and who runs the airline ,but the Unions have turned it into a power struggle. If it was about pure economic then I think this dispute would have been over a long time ago
It might of started of with BA wanting to cut its operating cost ,but the unions have dragged it out
Unite and Bassa had agreed to the BA management changes in CC working practices at Gatwick over 2 Plus years ago , with out any noises being made ,yet when theses same practices were introduce at LHR we get as strike organised by the same unions who were seen to roll over at Gatwick question is why? what had changed ,there was no change in CC contracts just working practices which would have covered by their existing Contracts
Now we are in a position were the Union are striking for Non contractual Perks Unite were willing to accept the last offer from BA which would see some restoration of travel perks But Bassa were not willing to accept that so unite decide not put the proposal to its members
To me that sounds more of a power struggle between BA and Bassa with Unite stuck piggy in the middle
By: MSR777
- 30th March 2011 at 23:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for the info Kevin. You seem very well up on the intricacies of this dispute and I've learnt more about the situation from you. Could it be that the CCs at LGW, along with their union(s) could actually see what was coming? The thing that I really don't get, is why the CCs, and their union(s) at LHR can't, or won't.
The CCs involved here are not being made to do their job with a gun pointed at their heads, neither are the rest of us I hope. Sorry, but in these times, and with so very many people, that would be suitable candidates for these jobs out of work, I have to ask the CCs this, if they don't want to do the job, or if the pay and conditions no longer suit them, then why not get off the planes and make way for the great number of people, who would be only too happy to take their place. Just ask my very well educated 19yr old nephew, who finished higher education last summer, yes he is still having to stack shelves at his local Tesco on permanent nights, because its all he can get, poor sod!
By: cloud_9
- 31st March 2011 at 18:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree with Interflug here...its both a economic and a power battle, but in what proportion I do not know, however, I would guess its slightly more towards an economic one, simply because there are so many airlines out there and they all do the same thing, at the end of the day it all comes down to the service that they provide to their customers, and in order to be the best, you need the best people.
Some on here seem to suggest that all those who go on strike should be sacked immediately and others given their jobs, but I believe this is going from one extreme to another, and the end result will be that service standards will decline, customers will choose not fly with them and the financial problems will only get worse.
Quite simply, BA were too slow to react to the changes in the market when low-cost carriers began to have an impact, and when it came to making the changes it felt it needed, I strongly believe that WW's bullish, combative, anti-Union style approach to things was a big mistake and he ultimately rubbed alot of people's backs up the wrong way, creating a lot of angst. And instead of choosing to deal with things before the first wave of strikes set-in, he choose to take it even further by taking the travel perks away. Angst increased.
Now, interestingly I happen to attend a business development workshop in Kent yesterday, and the keynote speaker delivered a lecture about Apple, the company that does all things iPod, iPhone, etc., and through this lecture I/we learnt about Apple's infamously secret corporate culture, and one of the main things that Apple apparently makes an huge emphasis on is this...
"Do not tell your staff what to do, instead make them better at doing what they do!"
I can't help but feel/think that maybe BA needs a bit of an internal culture change and that it should really look to adopt this and many of the other principles that Apple has applied to itself (I'm not going to list them all, as I had to pay for the event!), and hopefully this will begin to help restore the relationship between the staff and management, but they really need to do it pretty quickly before its too late.
Now, before anyone comes on here and poo-poo's this idea, I'd like to remind you that Apple is one of the fastest growing and well respected companies around, and also one of the most desired companies that people want to work for, and they say that their success comes down to the people that work for them.
By: cloud_9
- 31st March 2011 at 19:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This may come as a bit of a shock, but I would agree with you on this Bmused, however the caviat here is that I think its only a very small minority of those people who went/go on strike that still believe in what you said about the golden age...of course things change over a period of time, and things cannot always remain the same way that they used to be for a whole host of reasons, however, it depends on how you go about communicating and implementing these changes, and as I have suggested above, this involves a change in the internal culture, just as much as a change of attitudes.
By: MSR777
- 1st April 2011 at 08:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Now, interestingly I happen to attend a business development workshop in Kent yesterday, and the keynote speaker delivered a lecture about Apple, the company that does all things iPod, iPhone, etc., and through this lecture I/we learnt about Apple's infamously secret corporate culture, and one of the main things that Apple apparently makes an huge emphasis on is this...
"Do not tell your staff what to do, instead make them better at doing what they do!"
I can't help but feel/think that maybe BA needs a bit of an internal culture change and that it should really look to adopt this and many of the other principles that Apple has applied to itself (I'm not going to list them all, as I had to pay for the event!), and hopefully this will begin to help restore the relationship between the staff and management, but they really need to do it pretty quickly before its too late.
Now, before anyone comes on here and poo-poo's this idea, I'd like to remind you that Apple is one of the fastest growing and well respected companies around, and also one of the most desired companies that people want to work for, and they say that their success comes down to the people that work for them.
An interesting piece of information, and as you imply, its a philosophy that would appear to work for Apple, and might possibly for BA. But how would that philosophy work when it comes up against the ideology and seeming intransigence of the unions involved?. Such a philosophy would require genuine co-operation and good will on all sides. Sadly, in the main, I think we are a long way from that scenario in this dispute.
By: cloud_9
- 1st April 2011 at 23:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indeed Interflug, such a philosophy would require genuine co-operation on both sides, however, BA have managed to make it worse for themselves by adopting the bullish, combative, anti-Union style approach to things that WW applied.
Don't get me wrong, I know he was/is trying to run a business, but if you want to be the best at what you do, you need the best people on the front line, and in order to deliver the best, you need to constantly involve and allow innovative ideas to flow through (strangely another principle Apple has applied!) and by continually handling it the way they/he did just wasn't the right approach, in my opinion.
Tommy, I believe that there are some people on this forum who would glady see these people pushing trollies at ASDA or out of work altogether (at least they'd know that their taxes is being used to pay for the crew's job seekers allowance!), but sadly this is simply just a knee-jerk reaction and not something that would bring about the changes that are necessary at BA.
By: Bmused55
- 1st April 2011 at 23:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indeed Interflug, such a philosophy would require genuine co-operation on both sides, however, BA have managed to make it worse for themselves by adopting the bullish, combative, anti-Union style approach to things that WW applied.
Would you drop the rhetoric already.
This is simply not true.
BA offered changes to their entire workforce. Everyone else saw sense and accepted. But not the Cabin Crew. It was their union that started the bully tactics and mud slinging. Revoking non-contractual perks is not bullying, it's called punishment. If you cross the line and show disloyalty, why should you continue to be awarded loyalty perks?
BA CC continue to get paid more that their colleagues at other airlines.
There's more of them per flight and less for them to do.
BA are right to try and tighten the belts and make them work a bit harder.
I work a 40 hour week for pittance. A wage that hasn't been raised since 2008 (not even for inflation). I'm just glad to have a job.
The BA CC that continue to vote to strike for their non contractual perks and slight adjustments to their employment should take a long hard look at the dole queue and what they can get for £40 a week.
By: cloud_9
- 2nd April 2011 at 06:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No rhetoric, just opinion.
And as I have said before, we've been here before, so there is simply no point in answering the points that you raise because I would be repeating myself from earlier posts which have been made throughout, it just wastes my time and space on this forum.
I am no doubt one of a very small minority here, and frankly I could not care if I was the only person, all I am saying is that I would have done and gone about things differently because I actually "value" what is important in the service industry, and the people that work in it...thats all.
If you choose to work a 40 hour week for a pittance on a wage that hasn't been raised since 2008 and are happy with this, then that's fine, thats your choice, but just don't expect other people to fall into the same line as you.
By: Grey Area
- 2nd April 2011 at 06:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Moderator Message
Ahem....
This seems as good a time as any to point out that this is a discussion forum where (unlike, say, a blog) one should expect to encounter opinions and viewpoints that differ - sometimes quite radically - from one's own.
Counter and refute them by all means, but please do not attempt to "shout others down" or to hector them into silence.
At the end of the day, it's all just opinion. Yours, mine, theirs.
All worth exactly the same - ie, next to nothing. :)
By: kevinwm
- 2nd April 2011 at 07:12Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sandy you are correct
How can a company change its working practices when it is being held to ransom by a Union that will not
Bassa had 2 years to get a deal with BA and refused to come to the table , they bullied non striking members with drew labour and then tried to bring other unions outside the UK into the dispute
Their cause was and is on a shaky leg ,look how many time BA took them to court and won making any strike Illegal ,BA is well with in their rights to sack those who striked but haven't they cant strike on the original cause any more due to Bassa failing to negotiate (They seem to like to dictate) with in the 12 week period so now they are trying again using the removal of Non contractual benefits
CC signed a contract which states Travel benefits are non contractual are Non Negotiable and can be removed at any time , they signed it and they knew what could happen
Posts: 4,956
By: Sky High - 30th March 2011 at 09:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Surely no more blind than the 250,000 who marched at the weekend. Either peope are cocooned from reality or the government needs to do more to explain the economic reality. Or probably a bit of both.
Posts: 10,160
By: Grey Area - 30th March 2011 at 12:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Moderator Message
Let's stay on-topic, shall we?
Naughty old Sky High! ;)
Cheers
GA
Posts: 4,956
By: Sky High - 30th March 2011 at 12:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Curses! I'm surprised it took you so long to catch me out!;):)
Posts: 10,160
By: Grey Area - 30th March 2011 at 12:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Despite evidence to the contrary, I do have a life you know. :cool:
Posts: 4,956
By: Sky High - 30th March 2011 at 12:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And there was I thinking the Key Forum was your raison d'etre!:p:)
Posts: 1,105
By: kevinwm - 30th March 2011 at 18:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its not about economics its a power battle, the Unions want to Run BA like they have in the past ,pure and simply and the BA Management aren't going to let them
Posts: 2,886
By: MSR777 - 30th March 2011 at 20:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I disagree. It is too simplistic to exclude economics from the argument. As far as BA is concerned, it is very much a case of economics, and of their struggle to adapt to the new playing field. It may very well be simply a power battle on the part of the unions 'Politburo' but in the end that won't matter. These members need BA more than BA needs them, fact. In the good 'ol days, when BA was a state owned behemoth, economics was a dirty word and being fired was virtually unheard of, in that cosy world of 'jobs for life'. Most of us out here have had to change our attitudes and aspirations in terms of our careers, we may not like it, but there it is. Now, the Union leaders appear to be unable (or unwilling) to come to terms with the current state of industrial relations, so be it, but surely some of the membership can see where this is all heading. I have been a committed Socialist for near on 35 years, and have myself been involved in industrial action back in the mid 80s, but I can see the writing on the wall for these potential strikers, and so can most of us out here if we're honest. I'm quite prepared to be labelled an apologist for BA and Mr. Walsh, and if that is what my post implies, then I'll have to be guilty as charged, although I will still think it a little unfair! There are an awful lot of unemployed young, willing and educated people out there. I think that the question that these potential strikers should be asking themselves, is wether they are prepared to drive their employer into the arms of cheap labour, and thereby the practices that go with it, by their refusal to see things as they really are. And would that scenario in the end, not be down to economics?
Posts: 1,105
By: kevinwm - 30th March 2011 at 20:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have to agree with a lot of what you say ,I think in BA position its about economics and who runs the airline ,but the Unions have turned it into a power struggle. If it was about pure economic then I think this dispute would have been over a long time ago
It might of started of with BA wanting to cut its operating cost ,but the unions have dragged it out
Unite and Bassa had agreed to the BA management changes in CC working practices at Gatwick over 2 Plus years ago , with out any noises being made ,yet when theses same practices were introduce at LHR we get as strike organised by the same unions who were seen to roll over at Gatwick question is why? what had changed ,there was no change in CC contracts just working practices which would have covered by their existing Contracts
Now we are in a position were the Union are striking for Non contractual Perks Unite were willing to accept the last offer from BA which would see some restoration of travel perks But Bassa were not willing to accept that so unite decide not put the proposal to its members
To me that sounds more of a power struggle between BA and Bassa with Unite stuck piggy in the middle
Posts: 2,886
By: MSR777 - 30th March 2011 at 23:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Thanks for the info Kevin. You seem very well up on the intricacies of this dispute and I've learnt more about the situation from you. Could it be that the CCs at LGW, along with their union(s) could actually see what was coming? The thing that I really don't get, is why the CCs, and their union(s) at LHR can't, or won't.
The CCs involved here are not being made to do their job with a gun pointed at their heads, neither are the rest of us I hope. Sorry, but in these times, and with so very many people, that would be suitable candidates for these jobs out of work, I have to ask the CCs this, if they don't want to do the job, or if the pay and conditions no longer suit them, then why not get off the planes and make way for the great number of people, who would be only too happy to take their place. Just ask my very well educated 19yr old nephew, who finished higher education last summer, yes he is still having to stack shelves at his local Tesco on permanent nights, because its all he can get, poor sod!
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 31st March 2011 at 18:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I agree with Interflug here...its both a economic and a power battle, but in what proportion I do not know, however, I would guess its slightly more towards an economic one, simply because there are so many airlines out there and they all do the same thing, at the end of the day it all comes down to the service that they provide to their customers, and in order to be the best, you need the best people.
Some on here seem to suggest that all those who go on strike should be sacked immediately and others given their jobs, but I believe this is going from one extreme to another, and the end result will be that service standards will decline, customers will choose not fly with them and the financial problems will only get worse.
Quite simply, BA were too slow to react to the changes in the market when low-cost carriers began to have an impact, and when it came to making the changes it felt it needed, I strongly believe that WW's bullish, combative, anti-Union style approach to things was a big mistake and he ultimately rubbed alot of people's backs up the wrong way, creating a lot of angst. And instead of choosing to deal with things before the first wave of strikes set-in, he choose to take it even further by taking the travel perks away. Angst increased.
Now, interestingly I happen to attend a business development workshop in Kent yesterday, and the keynote speaker delivered a lecture about Apple, the company that does all things iPod, iPhone, etc., and through this lecture I/we learnt about Apple's infamously secret corporate culture, and one of the main things that Apple apparently makes an huge emphasis on is this...
"Do not tell your staff what to do, instead make them better at doing what they do!"
I can't help but feel/think that maybe BA needs a bit of an internal culture change and that it should really look to adopt this and many of the other principles that Apple has applied to itself (I'm not going to list them all, as I had to pay for the event!), and hopefully this will begin to help restore the relationship between the staff and management, but they really need to do it pretty quickly before its too late.
Now, before anyone comes on here and poo-poo's this idea, I'd like to remind you that Apple is one of the fastest growing and well respected companies around, and also one of the most desired companies that people want to work for, and they say that their success comes down to the people that work for them.
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 31st March 2011 at 19:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And the striking CC are too slow to realise we're no longer in the golden age of jobs for life, low hours, high wages and perks galore.
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 31st March 2011 at 19:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This may come as a bit of a shock, but I would agree with you on this Bmused, however the caviat here is that I think its only a very small minority of those people who went/go on strike that still believe in what you said about the golden age...of course things change over a period of time, and things cannot always remain the same way that they used to be for a whole host of reasons, however, it depends on how you go about communicating and implementing these changes, and as I have suggested above, this involves a change in the internal culture, just as much as a change of attitudes.
Posts: 2,886
By: MSR777 - 1st April 2011 at 08:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
An interesting piece of information, and as you imply, its a philosophy that would appear to work for Apple, and might possibly for BA. But how would that philosophy work when it comes up against the ideology and seeming intransigence of the unions involved?. Such a philosophy would require genuine co-operation and good will on all sides. Sadly, in the main, I think we are a long way from that scenario in this dispute.
Posts: 1,280
By: tommyinyork - 1st April 2011 at 22:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think the cabin crew are very selfish. They have one of the best jobs on the planet and they want more and more and more.
Get them pushing trollies at asda. See if then they would like it.
Posts: 1,953
By: Skymonster - 1st April 2011 at 22:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah, well, it seems to me that tommyinyork has a stunning career ahead of him as an industrial relations manager! :rolleyes: NOT! :D
Andy
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 1st April 2011 at 23:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Indeed Interflug, such a philosophy would require genuine co-operation on both sides, however, BA have managed to make it worse for themselves by adopting the bullish, combative, anti-Union style approach to things that WW applied.
Don't get me wrong, I know he was/is trying to run a business, but if you want to be the best at what you do, you need the best people on the front line, and in order to deliver the best, you need to constantly involve and allow innovative ideas to flow through (strangely another principle Apple has applied!) and by continually handling it the way they/he did just wasn't the right approach, in my opinion.
Tommy, I believe that there are some people on this forum who would glady see these people pushing trollies at ASDA or out of work altogether (at least they'd know that their taxes is being used to pay for the crew's job seekers allowance!), but sadly this is simply just a knee-jerk reaction and not something that would bring about the changes that are necessary at BA.
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 1st April 2011 at 23:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Would you drop the rhetoric already.
This is simply not true.
BA offered changes to their entire workforce. Everyone else saw sense and accepted. But not the Cabin Crew. It was their union that started the bully tactics and mud slinging. Revoking non-contractual perks is not bullying, it's called punishment. If you cross the line and show disloyalty, why should you continue to be awarded loyalty perks?
BA CC continue to get paid more that their colleagues at other airlines.
There's more of them per flight and less for them to do.
BA are right to try and tighten the belts and make them work a bit harder.
I work a 40 hour week for pittance. A wage that hasn't been raised since 2008 (not even for inflation). I'm just glad to have a job.
The BA CC that continue to vote to strike for their non contractual perks and slight adjustments to their employment should take a long hard look at the dole queue and what they can get for £40 a week.
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 2nd April 2011 at 06:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No rhetoric, just opinion.
And as I have said before, we've been here before, so there is simply no point in answering the points that you raise because I would be repeating myself from earlier posts which have been made throughout, it just wastes my time and space on this forum.
I am no doubt one of a very small minority here, and frankly I could not care if I was the only person, all I am saying is that I would have done and gone about things differently because I actually "value" what is important in the service industry, and the people that work in it...thats all.
If you choose to work a 40 hour week for a pittance on a wage that hasn't been raised since 2008 and are happy with this, then that's fine, thats your choice, but just don't expect other people to fall into the same line as you.
Posts: 10,160
By: Grey Area - 2nd April 2011 at 06:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Moderator Message
Ahem....
This seems as good a time as any to point out that this is a discussion forum where (unlike, say, a blog) one should expect to encounter opinions and viewpoints that differ - sometimes quite radically - from one's own.
Counter and refute them by all means, but please do not attempt to "shout others down" or to hector them into silence.
At the end of the day, it's all just opinion. Yours, mine, theirs.
All worth exactly the same - ie, next to nothing. :)
Here endeth the lesson.
GA
Posts: 1,105
By: kevinwm - 2nd April 2011 at 07:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sandy you are correct
How can a company change its working practices when it is being held to ransom by a Union that will not
Bassa had 2 years to get a deal with BA and refused to come to the table , they bullied non striking members with drew labour and then tried to bring other unions outside the UK into the dispute
Their cause was and is on a shaky leg ,look how many time BA took them to court and won making any strike Illegal ,BA is well with in their rights to sack those who striked but haven't they cant strike on the original cause any more due to Bassa failing to negotiate (They seem to like to dictate) with in the 12 week period so now they are trying again using the removal of Non contractual benefits
CC signed a contract which states Travel benefits are non contractual are Non Negotiable and can be removed at any time , they signed it and they knew what could happen
Sound like Bulling to me but not from BA