By: MSR777
- 2nd April 2011 at 09:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Get them pushing trollies at asda. See if then they would like it.
I have to agree with that comment. As I said in an earlier post, I have a very well educated nephew with a great personality, who for many months now has been a night shelf stacker at our local Tesco, because thats all there is round here. What that guy wouldn't give for a job of the calibre of a BA C/C.
I don't intend posting anymore on this particular discussion. My final comment is that irrespective of the grievances that those CCs think that they have, they still have jobs, and bloody good ones at that, a very great number of willing and well educated people do not. They, as I do, look on with incredulity at the antics of these BA staff members. No one is making these potential strikers do these jobs, there are no guns at their heads. In the present economic climate, this kind of squabbling and downright selfishness is a luxury and a slap in the face of those who would give their right arms for jobs such as these. The job obviously does not seem to suit some of the CCs anymore, so they should stop torturing themselves and move on to pastures new. I'm sure the jobless would thank them for it, and so would I.
By: cloud_9
- 2nd April 2011 at 10:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
they bullied non striking members...
And non-union members also bullied striking colleagues too, so its swings and roundabouts...like a bunch of kids in a playground at school.
then tried to bring other unions outside the UK into the dispute.
Indeed, the use of secondary action (strikes involving other unions in other countries) would have been illegal, and both BA and the Union knew this, but it was just a way of being able grab even more media attention whilst one party is trying to make out that they are the better of the two.
That said though, are you suggesting that if you were fighting for a cause, irrespective of what it may well be, you'd simply just stand there and fight for it and would not try to seek solodarity from anyone else that maybe willing to support your cause. Correct me if I am wrong, but that just sounds rather naive/stupid in my opinion. Surely you would welcome any support you could possibly get as it would help you to fight even stronger for your cause, even if those that support you don't particpate in any action that you are proposing to take?!
...look how many time BA took them to court and won making any strike illegal
Ok, so I have to conceed that you do actually have a point here which I do accept; if the Union are going to ballot for strike action, then they must make sure that they are more organised and efficient when it comes to the balloting process so as to avoid the potential for it to be ruled illegal in the courts. That said though, its rather embarrasing that BA chose to go to court to try to fight it out over a minor technicality, rather than sitting round the table and continuing to negotitate.
BA is well with in their rights to sack those who striked but haven't...
Incorrect, you cannot sack someone for going on a legal strike; and lets just be clear, when strike action has taken place in the past, it has been done so legally!
...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.
Without actually being able to see/read a copy of their contract for myself, and I assume that you have not either because you seem to make a fairly generalised statement above, so I am unable to directly answer on this particular point without having the necessary resources to actually look at.
Nevertheless, I have just spent a few moments reviewing my work contract as I am given certain travel benefits at work, and it clearly states that travel benefits are a concession and not a right (Rule 1), but it does not state that they can be withdrawn at anytime and for any reason. What it does say is that "deliberte dishonesty" will result in dismissal from the company.
Threatening and actually taking someone's travel benefits away for going on a legally conducted strike is an unfair and punitive measure designed simply to scare those workers that were thinking of going on strike in to not doing so (just because they didn't go on strike, doesn't necessarily mean that they don't support those that did!), and of course it was done to further increase the divisons between work colleagues, in an attempt to sure up support for their side of the argument.
By: cloud_9
- 2nd April 2011 at 10:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...downright selfishness...and a slap in the face...
And I suppose WW accepting his bonus of £420,000 for 2010 isn't being selfish or a slap in the face to the workers who help to generate the mainstream income of the business, all of whom have been told that they will not be recieving bonuses/pay rises for several years because the company "cannot afford it", yet senior figures are able to...something not quite right there I think?!
Personally, I quite like the way that some of the US-based carriers operate...they have "profit sharing" event days, in which the CEO visits stations all over the US and personally hands out cheques to its employees, does anyone know if BA/WW does/did this at all when bonuses were last paid to its employees?
By: parsley
- 2nd April 2011 at 11:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Without actually being able to see/read a copy of their contract for myself, and I assume that you have not either because you seem to make a fairly generalised statement above, so I am unable to directly answer on this particular point without having the necessary resources to actually look at.
Nevertheless, I have just spent a few moments reviewing my work contract as I am given certain travel benefits at work, and it clearly states that travel benefits are a concession and not a right (Rule 1), but it does not state that they can be withdrawn at anytime and for any reason. What it does say is that "deliberte dishonesty" will result in dismissal from the company.
Threatening and actually taking someone's travel benefits away for going on a legally conducted strike is an unfair and punitive measure designed simply to scare those workers that were thinking of going on strike in to not doing so (just because they didn't go on strike, doesn't necessarily mean that they don't support those that did!), and of course it was done to further increase the divisons between work colleagues, in an attempt to sure up support for their side of the argument.
Cloud 9...I would imagine that the items in BA contracts regarding staff travel are similar to each of the 4 carriers I have worked for which all clearly stated that staff travel was a non contractural benefit that could be withdrawn at any time
By: parsley
- 2nd April 2011 at 11:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And I suppose WW accepting his bonus of £420,000 for 2010 isn't being selfish or a slap in the face to the workers who help to generate the mainstream income of the business, all of whom have been told that they will not be recieving bonuses/pay rises for several years because the company "cannot afford it", yet senior figures are able to...something not quite right there I think?!
Personally, I quite like the way that some of the US-based carriers operate...they have "profit sharing" event days, in which the CEO visits stations all over the US and personally hands out cheques to its employees, does anyone know if BA/WW does/did this at all when bonuses were last paid to its employees?
I think bonuses were paid or are being paid this month
By: cloud_9
- 3rd April 2011 at 11:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Would be very interesting to see/hear about this officially though...any ideas as to where we might be able to find out, as I suspect that the press/media will only report about WW's bonus.
Of course, those on here who are against the cabin crew and think that the strikers are scum and all who go on strike deserve to loose their jobs (or work in Asda?) will no doubt look at this and say "No way, they don't deserve a bonus..."
...but of course if they actually took just a minute to look at the bigger picture, they have continued working (because, oddly enough, they actually do want to work!), and they have still been delivering the high standard of service that is expected of them, despite what they may feel/think, so I do believe that they deserve some credit/reward for their efforts to date!
I do just hope that both sides manage to see sense and are able to properly negotitate and agree on a new deal, so as to avoid any potential strikes in the near future.
By: Bmused55
- 3rd April 2011 at 13:10Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
so I do believe that they deserve some credit/reward for their efforts to date!
They do, it's called a wage. They get paid plenty for what they do. And those who went on strike deserve not a penny more than their contractual wage.
Those that stepped up to cover for them do deserve bonuses. Pilots, ground staff, anyone who volunteered and trained up to stand in for the stricking cabin crew, they surpassed their contracts and put the greater good of the company first. These people deserve to keep their perks and receive a healthy bonus.
I'd even go as far as suggesting those working in the call centres for BA reservations, complaints etc, they deserve bonuses for being on the front line taking complaints from angry customers.
I do just hope that both sides manage to see sense and are able to properly negotitate and agree on a new deal, so as to avoid any potential strikes in the near future.
The ball is firmly in the court of the Cabin Crew and it's union. The latest ballot shows they don't want to talk.
Anyway, they will have to give in. They cannot strike any further. The dispute is a year old.
Employment law states:
The dismissal of any striking employee during the first 12 weeks of lawfully organised official strike action will be deemed unfair. However, you can dismiss an employee after the 12 week period if you can show you have made genuine attempts to negotiate.
As this dispute is well beyond 12 weeks old, any strike action at this point leaves those participating open to dismissal.
I'd bet the militant cabin crew know this and that is way they've voted but done nothing.
The strikers has as good and sero public support.
The law no longer supports them.
Their numbers are falling.
They have lost. If they value their jobs so highly, they will get back to it and put up with the changes everyone else at BA has accepted.
By: englishrob
- 3rd April 2011 at 18:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not quite sure that's how it went, but it was the end result. :rolleyes:
Very true! BA did not offer changes, they imposed changes. There is a difference.
It is also true that staff received a bonus which, according to job position, was approx 1 weeks wage or £400.
It seems to me that the "volunteers" who covered for CC during the strike have actually prolonged the dispute and after talking to some of those who did, now see this and regret it. They also thought that they would be earning "brownie points" in the eyes of management, but it has now become clear that they are seen as no better than the "non volunteer" and again, now regret their actions.
By: cloud_9
- 4th April 2011 at 07:38Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The dispute is a year old.
Its actually two years old now. Do try to keep up.;)
The strikers has as good and sero public support.
Of course they have "limited" public support, because it is the public that are the real victims of all of this as they are the ones that are unintentionally stuck in the middle.
They have lost. If they value their jobs so highly, they will get back to it... and put up with the changes everyone else at BA has accepted.
They are "back to it" so to speak...they never left!?:confused:
So you are seriously suggesting that you would be more than happy to do just this...your boss/manager comes in one day, demanding to change the terms and conditions of your employment regardless of the reason, and you would quite happily just bow down and say "Yes sir/m'am, I accept"...no if's, no but's, no what if's, no negotitation, nothing on your part, just a firm acceptance and then you continue on with your work?
Very true! BA did not offer changes, they imposed changes. There is a difference.
It is also true that staff received a bonus which, according to job position, was approx 1 weeks wage or £400.
Thank you englishrob...couldn't have put it better myself.
£400...well I suppose something is better than nothing, but a bonus of £420,000 for WW is over 1000% more, seems a tad biased in favour of the management I think and is a really good way of showing how much (or little, I should say!) you value your frontline staff!?:mad:
By: MSR777
- 4th April 2011 at 09:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So you are seriously suggesting that you would be more than happy to do just this...your boss/manager comes in one day, demanding to change the terms and conditions of your employment regardless of the reason, and you would quite happily just bow down and say "Yes sir/m'am, I accept"...no if's, no but's, no what if's, no negotitation, nothing on your part, just a firm acceptance and then you continue on with your work?
I'm amazed at your comment! BA is not a workers commune or a co-operative. Let me turn the tables here. Are YOU seriously suggesting that a company owner/manager DOES NOT have the right to do exactly that, whilst confirming to employment laws and contractual obligations?
In my contract of employment in my last job, there was an item that read something like this: The terms and conditions in the contract can be liable to revision subject to changes in trading conditions. I signed it being totally aware of that caveat. I suspect that the BA contracts probably contain something similar.
I really had promised myself not to post further on this, but c9, come on.
By: Sky High
- 4th April 2011 at 14:29Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cloud 9 - your boss/manager comes in one day, demanding to change the terms and conditions of your employment regardless of the reason, and you would quite happily just bow down and say "Yes sir/m'am, I accept"...no if's, no but's, no what if's, no negotitation, nothing on your part, just a firm acceptance and then you continue on with your work?
I was not going to be drawn into this yet again but having a natural antithesis to unionism in general, although accepting that on occasion it has merit, my response to your question to another poster is no, I would not bow down and say yes, if I didn't like what was being offered. I would leave.
Now the response to that might be that it is very well but jobs are hard to come by and the same package might not be available etc etc. Well, if that is the response, then my argument would be "put up or shut up".
In the private sector the laws of supply and demand operate. And when the economy is sluggish and demand is low the employer holds the stronger hand of cards. In a strong, healthy, growing economy the employee holds the strong hand.
By: cloud_9
- 7th April 2011 at 12:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
BA is not a workers commune or a co-operative. Let me turn the tables here. Are YOU seriously suggesting that a company owner/manager DOES NOT have the right to do exactly that, whilst confirming to employment laws and contractual obligations?
No, indeed BA is not a commune or co-operative, and no, I am not suggesting that a company owner/manager does not have the right to do it, but what I would expect is for the managers to approach the workers and perhaps ask for their involvement in the process, as it is often the workforce that are good at finding areas of waste and expense that can be reduced in order to save on costs, rather than immediately hitting their pay packets and/or terms and conditions of employment.
Another Apple culture moment: "Empower employees to make a difference."
I would not bow down and say yes, if I didn't like what was being offered. I would leave.
But being realistic SH, you wouldn't simply just leave without knowing that there was a job available for you to leave too as you would be cutting your nose to spite your face and in this case. Many of these people have families to support and are not going to want make their own position even worse off, and neither should they be made to either!?
Again, I question WW's acceptance of his bonus...despite his hard work in getting the merger with IB through and establishing IAG, he should really think twice about taking it, otherwise it will just serve to cause even more problems. But then again, like most other CEO's, he's motivated by money and greed, and as long as he's looked after ok...he couldn't give a s**t or care less about anyone else, a truly evil man!:mad:
In a strong, healthy, growing economy the employee holds the strong hand.
Not necessarily true...whats to stop BA from imposing further changes to the workers even if the economy is strong, healthy and growing and they are making a profit, nothing.
By: Sky High
- 7th April 2011 at 12:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Because, and that was the general point I was tring to make, in a growing economy business is expanding, and more jobs become available and the employee can pick and choose.
As to your earlier point I think you have rather made my argument for me. If the employee cannot or will not resign then his case is weak. And the employer is in the stronger position.
And in terms of the greater argument the CEO's bonus does not seen relevant.
By: cloud_9
- 7th April 2011 at 14:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And in terms of the greater argument the CEO's bonus does not seen relevant.
So its fair for a CEO of a company to take a considerable bonus, whilst he is asking his main workforce to make changes because the company is in financial difficulty...is it?:confused:
Ok, so I know WW is no longer CEO of BA so to speak, but still...it smacks of sheer arrogance and hypocrisy, if you ask me.:mad:
If you're a CEO and your company is facing tough times, the last thing that should be considered is bonuses!
By: MSR777
- 7th April 2011 at 18:47Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, indeed BA is not a commune or co-operative, and no, I am not suggesting that a company owner/manager does not have the right to do it, but what I would expect is for the managers to approach the workers and perhaps ask for their involvement in the process, as it is often the workforce that are good at finding areas of waste and expense that can be reduced in order to save on costs, rather than immediately hitting their pay packets and/or terms and conditions of employment.
Another Apple culture moment: "Empower employees to make a difference."
In your first line you acknowledge my point that BA is neither a commune nor a co-operative, but you seem to expect it to act like one. As far as I am aware, negotiations have taken place many times in this dispute, involving both parties. For various reasons, neither party sees fit to acquiesce to the other. Now, WW has/had an obligation to his shareholders to ensure the smooth and profitable operation of the airline, absolutely nothing wrong with that, and of course, it is ideal if you can carry your workforce with you in the process. Why should it be acceptable to the potential strikers, to engage in an action that is likely to seriously damage the company, and at the same time jeopardise their continued employment. Yet if WW engages in practices that will enable BA to adapt to the new, more competitive airline industry, and thereby ensure safe and stable employment for its staff, the guy is demonised, he can't win!
As I've said before, I abhor the rabid 'free market Stalinism' that appears to have become central to society here over the last 30 years or so. However, it seems the great majority of British voters support it, and have done so for a very long time, although that might shortly change, its the system we have. Bosses bonuses, big cars and houses etc etc are an integral part of the system like it or not, it serves no purpose to keep on bleating about them, as alas, they have always been here.
Posts: 2,886
By: MSR777 - 2nd April 2011 at 09:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I have to agree with that comment. As I said in an earlier post, I have a very well educated nephew with a great personality, who for many months now has been a night shelf stacker at our local Tesco, because thats all there is round here. What that guy wouldn't give for a job of the calibre of a BA C/C.
I don't intend posting anymore on this particular discussion. My final comment is that irrespective of the grievances that those CCs think that they have, they still have jobs, and bloody good ones at that, a very great number of willing and well educated people do not. They, as I do, look on with incredulity at the antics of these BA staff members. No one is making these potential strikers do these jobs, there are no guns at their heads. In the present economic climate, this kind of squabbling and downright selfishness is a luxury and a slap in the face of those who would give their right arms for jobs such as these. The job obviously does not seem to suit some of the CCs anymore, so they should stop torturing themselves and move on to pastures new. I'm sure the jobless would thank them for it, and so would I.
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 2nd April 2011 at 10:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And non-union members also bullied striking colleagues too, so its swings and roundabouts...like a bunch of kids in a playground at school.
Indeed, the use of secondary action (strikes involving other unions in other countries) would have been illegal, and both BA and the Union knew this, but it was just a way of being able grab even more media attention whilst one party is trying to make out that they are the better of the two.
That said though, are you suggesting that if you were fighting for a cause, irrespective of what it may well be, you'd simply just stand there and fight for it and would not try to seek solodarity from anyone else that maybe willing to support your cause. Correct me if I am wrong, but that just sounds rather naive/stupid in my opinion. Surely you would welcome any support you could possibly get as it would help you to fight even stronger for your cause, even if those that support you don't particpate in any action that you are proposing to take?!
Ok, so I have to conceed that you do actually have a point here which I do accept; if the Union are going to ballot for strike action, then they must make sure that they are more organised and efficient when it comes to the balloting process so as to avoid the potential for it to be ruled illegal in the courts. That said though, its rather embarrasing that BA chose to go to court to try to fight it out over a minor technicality, rather than sitting round the table and continuing to negotitate.
Incorrect, you cannot sack someone for going on a legal strike; and lets just be clear, when strike action has taken place in the past, it has been done so legally!
Without actually being able to see/read a copy of their contract for myself, and I assume that you have not either because you seem to make a fairly generalised statement above, so I am unable to directly answer on this particular point without having the necessary resources to actually look at.
Nevertheless, I have just spent a few moments reviewing my work contract as I am given certain travel benefits at work, and it clearly states that travel benefits are a concession and not a right (Rule 1), but it does not state that they can be withdrawn at anytime and for any reason. What it does say is that "deliberte dishonesty" will result in dismissal from the company.
Threatening and actually taking someone's travel benefits away for going on a legally conducted strike is an unfair and punitive measure designed simply to scare those workers that were thinking of going on strike in to not doing so (just because they didn't go on strike, doesn't necessarily mean that they don't support those that did!), and of course it was done to further increase the divisons between work colleagues, in an attempt to sure up support for their side of the argument.
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 2nd April 2011 at 10:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
And I suppose WW accepting his bonus of £420,000 for 2010 isn't being selfish or a slap in the face to the workers who help to generate the mainstream income of the business, all of whom have been told that they will not be recieving bonuses/pay rises for several years because the company "cannot afford it", yet senior figures are able to...something not quite right there I think?!
Source:http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/apr/01/british-airways-willie-walsh-bonus
Personally, I quite like the way that some of the US-based carriers operate...they have "profit sharing" event days, in which the CEO visits stations all over the US and personally hands out cheques to its employees, does anyone know if BA/WW does/did this at all when bonuses were last paid to its employees?
Posts: 34
By: parsley - 2nd April 2011 at 11:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cloud 9...I would imagine that the items in BA contracts regarding staff travel are similar to each of the 4 carriers I have worked for which all clearly stated that staff travel was a non contractural benefit that could be withdrawn at any time
Posts: 34
By: parsley - 2nd April 2011 at 11:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think bonuses were paid or are being paid this month
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 3rd April 2011 at 00:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To everyone (inc. Cabin Crew), or just senior management?!:confused:
Posts: 34
By: parsley - 3rd April 2011 at 07:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To everyone I believe
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 3rd April 2011 at 11:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Would be very interesting to see/hear about this officially though...any ideas as to where we might be able to find out, as I suspect that the press/media will only report about WW's bonus.
Of course, those on here who are against the cabin crew and think that the strikers are scum and all who go on strike deserve to loose their jobs (or work in Asda?) will no doubt look at this and say "No way, they don't deserve a bonus..."
...but of course if they actually took just a minute to look at the bigger picture, they have continued working (because, oddly enough, they actually do want to work!), and they have still been delivering the high standard of service that is expected of them, despite what they may feel/think, so I do believe that they deserve some credit/reward for their efforts to date!
I do just hope that both sides manage to see sense and are able to properly negotitate and agree on a new deal, so as to avoid any potential strikes in the near future.
Posts: 10,625
By: Bmused55 - 3rd April 2011 at 13:10 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They do, it's called a wage. They get paid plenty for what they do. And those who went on strike deserve not a penny more than their contractual wage.
Those that stepped up to cover for them do deserve bonuses. Pilots, ground staff, anyone who volunteered and trained up to stand in for the stricking cabin crew, they surpassed their contracts and put the greater good of the company first. These people deserve to keep their perks and receive a healthy bonus.
I'd even go as far as suggesting those working in the call centres for BA reservations, complaints etc, they deserve bonuses for being on the front line taking complaints from angry customers.
The ball is firmly in the court of the Cabin Crew and it's union. The latest ballot shows they don't want to talk.
Anyway, they will have to give in. They cannot strike any further. The dispute is a year old.
Employment law states:
As this dispute is well beyond 12 weeks old, any strike action at this point leaves those participating open to dismissal.
I'd bet the militant cabin crew know this and that is way they've voted but done nothing.
The strikers has as good and sero public support.
The law no longer supports them.
Their numbers are falling.
They have lost. If they value their jobs so highly, they will get back to it and put up with the changes everyone else at BA has accepted.
Posts: 949
By: ThreeSpool - 3rd April 2011 at 15:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not quite sure that's how it went, but it was the end result. :rolleyes:
Posts: 14
By: englishrob - 3rd April 2011 at 18:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Very true! BA did not offer changes, they imposed changes. There is a difference.
It is also true that staff received a bonus which, according to job position, was approx 1 weeks wage or £400.
It seems to me that the "volunteers" who covered for CC during the strike have actually prolonged the dispute and after talking to some of those who did, now see this and regret it. They also thought that they would be earning "brownie points" in the eyes of management, but it has now become clear that they are seen as no better than the "non volunteer" and again, now regret their actions.
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 4th April 2011 at 07:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its actually two years old now. Do try to keep up.;)
Of course they have "limited" public support, because it is the public that are the real victims of all of this as they are the ones that are unintentionally stuck in the middle.
They are "back to it" so to speak...they never left!?:confused:
So you are seriously suggesting that you would be more than happy to do just this...your boss/manager comes in one day, demanding to change the terms and conditions of your employment regardless of the reason, and you would quite happily just bow down and say "Yes sir/m'am, I accept"...no if's, no but's, no what if's, no negotitation, nothing on your part, just a firm acceptance and then you continue on with your work?
Thank you englishrob...couldn't have put it better myself.
£400...well I suppose something is better than nothing, but a bonus of £420,000 for WW is over 1000% more, seems a tad biased in favour of the management I think and is a really good way of showing how much (or little, I should say!) you value your frontline staff!?:mad:
Posts: 2,886
By: MSR777 - 4th April 2011 at 09:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I'm amazed at your comment! BA is not a workers commune or a co-operative. Let me turn the tables here. Are YOU seriously suggesting that a company owner/manager DOES NOT have the right to do exactly that, whilst confirming to employment laws and contractual obligations?
In my contract of employment in my last job, there was an item that read something like this: The terms and conditions in the contract can be liable to revision subject to changes in trading conditions. I signed it being totally aware of that caveat. I suspect that the BA contracts probably contain something similar.
I really had promised myself not to post further on this, but c9, come on.
Posts: 4,956
By: Sky High - 4th April 2011 at 14:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cloud 9 - your boss/manager comes in one day, demanding to change the terms and conditions of your employment regardless of the reason, and you would quite happily just bow down and say "Yes sir/m'am, I accept"...no if's, no but's, no what if's, no negotitation, nothing on your part, just a firm acceptance and then you continue on with your work?
I was not going to be drawn into this yet again but having a natural antithesis to unionism in general, although accepting that on occasion it has merit, my response to your question to another poster is no, I would not bow down and say yes, if I didn't like what was being offered. I would leave.
Now the response to that might be that it is very well but jobs are hard to come by and the same package might not be available etc etc. Well, if that is the response, then my argument would be "put up or shut up".
In the private sector the laws of supply and demand operate. And when the economy is sluggish and demand is low the employer holds the stronger hand of cards. In a strong, healthy, growing economy the employee holds the strong hand.
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 7th April 2011 at 12:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, indeed BA is not a commune or co-operative, and no, I am not suggesting that a company owner/manager does not have the right to do it, but what I would expect is for the managers to approach the workers and perhaps ask for their involvement in the process, as it is often the workforce that are good at finding areas of waste and expense that can be reduced in order to save on costs, rather than immediately hitting their pay packets and/or terms and conditions of employment.
Another Apple culture moment: "Empower employees to make a difference."
But being realistic SH, you wouldn't simply just leave without knowing that there was a job available for you to leave too as you would be cutting your nose to spite your face and in this case. Many of these people have families to support and are not going to want make their own position even worse off, and neither should they be made to either!?
Again, I question WW's acceptance of his bonus...despite his hard work in getting the merger with IB through and establishing IAG, he should really think twice about taking it, otherwise it will just serve to cause even more problems. But then again, like most other CEO's, he's motivated by money and greed, and as long as he's looked after ok...he couldn't give a s**t or care less about anyone else, a truly evil man!:mad:
Not necessarily true...whats to stop BA from imposing further changes to the workers even if the economy is strong, healthy and growing and they are making a profit, nothing.
Posts: 4,956
By: Sky High - 7th April 2011 at 12:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Because, and that was the general point I was tring to make, in a growing economy business is expanding, and more jobs become available and the employee can pick and choose.
As to your earlier point I think you have rather made my argument for me. If the employee cannot or will not resign then his case is weak. And the employer is in the stronger position.
And in terms of the greater argument the CEO's bonus does not seen relevant.
Posts: 2,343
By: cloud_9 - 7th April 2011 at 14:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So its fair for a CEO of a company to take a considerable bonus, whilst he is asking his main workforce to make changes because the company is in financial difficulty...is it?:confused:
Ok, so I know WW is no longer CEO of BA so to speak, but still...it smacks of sheer arrogance and hypocrisy, if you ask me.:mad:
If you're a CEO and your company is facing tough times, the last thing that should be considered is bonuses!
Same applies to the banks...bunch of crooks!
Posts: 2,886
By: MSR777 - 7th April 2011 at 18:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
In your first line you acknowledge my point that BA is neither a commune nor a co-operative, but you seem to expect it to act like one. As far as I am aware, negotiations have taken place many times in this dispute, involving both parties. For various reasons, neither party sees fit to acquiesce to the other. Now, WW has/had an obligation to his shareholders to ensure the smooth and profitable operation of the airline, absolutely nothing wrong with that, and of course, it is ideal if you can carry your workforce with you in the process. Why should it be acceptable to the potential strikers, to engage in an action that is likely to seriously damage the company, and at the same time jeopardise their continued employment. Yet if WW engages in practices that will enable BA to adapt to the new, more competitive airline industry, and thereby ensure safe and stable employment for its staff, the guy is demonised, he can't win!
As I've said before, I abhor the rabid 'free market Stalinism' that appears to have become central to society here over the last 30 years or so. However, it seems the great majority of British voters support it, and have done so for a very long time, although that might shortly change, its the system we have. Bosses bonuses, big cars and houses etc etc are an integral part of the system like it or not, it serves no purpose to keep on bleating about them, as alas, they have always been here.