Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
probably should expect some sort of disruption. they're never going to be happy are they?
is that certain travel companies are locked into contracts with BA for particular flights. So they don't have a choice
Because a BA strike is really an annual affair stretching back years huh
We're getting to Barcelona
Getting home looking less good
you card read good
and even fewer who see it as anything less than monumentally stupid
it's clearly become a political standoff now, the government and the willie walshes of the world are trying to crush the unions before the major cuts start coming into play.
i look forward to the tear-jerking stories of little kids not getting to go on their holidays though. ohh those nasty unions.
The whole company is in trouble and their grandstanding is putting other people's jobs at risk in order to make a political point by taking 16 days of strike in a month
Not quite what the pioneers of the trade union movement had in mind I imagine
The technicality they were pulled up on was ridiculous, the ballot was legitimate
and know that, like me, you're built like the Saint's symbol.
I'd say I'm up on it, and I find it slightly disingenious to make such a comment trying to imply I am uniformed
As I understand it, the residual issues, and those that BA are refusing to discuss at talks (prompting the strikes), are those of them taking disciplinary action and removing staff perks for some of the cabin crew involved in the earlier strikes – which is technically illegal.
why is it illegal to remove staff perks?
a) unilaterally change the terms of someone’s contract, which was the basis for the original dispute at the end of last year (BA imposed changes in working practices without consulting staff).
b) take action against people that have participated in strike action.
The union knows that BA is in trouble (well, it’s had one bad year after several making big profits that outweigh this year’s loss), and they have proposed alternatives to BA, as well as being the ones trying to instigate talks etc. These talks looked to have produced a resolution last time, but the problem is that Walsh, even against the wishes of the negotiating team and the rest of the board of directors, pulled the rug away from under the potential agreement.
I'm not saying BA have behaved well, or are well managed, but do you think the loss of the travel perk, even in those circumstances, is worthy of SIXTEEN days of strikes?
It undervalues the value of the strike, it should be a last resort "You've left us no choice". Instead they seem to be taking every oppotunity to do so, and seemingly revelling in it. I think this rather odious, given over this dispute both they and BA are putting the livelihoods of many more people at risk, but I expected better from an organisation that claims to represent the workers
a long time ago, when the fallout from the first strike was at its worst, and so it's a hang over from that. The way that the law works, the strike length has to be declared to be the length as originally balloted. Any revision would require a fresh ballot, reporting of results etc.
Unfortunately, it seems that BA are only willing to come to the negotiating table when they have the threat of strike action hanging over their heads.
To be honest, I think that the Union are shooting themselves in the foot with this action. 80% of the press in this country is always going to be rabidly anti-union, whether there are strikes or not, 100% of the affected members of the public are going to be against the strikes, whether they'd do the same in the same position or not, and the vast majority of the rest of the population don't really know anything about it beyond the headline story reported in the papers. Sometimes I wonder whether unions appreciate this.
I wonder how much other high ups in BA are getting paid. I bet they're not too worried about whether BA collapses in financial ruin or not.
Given who would touch any of them with a barge pole if they destroyed BA.
Oh, I forgot, people who earn lots of money are automatically bad aren't they. Sorry to stray off the party line
but ability seems to be last thing anyone needs to get jobs running stuff, judging by how far so many of the useless people in charge of this company gone after leaving. I hear similar stories across the board.
It's more about who you know, not how well you do.
You can fuck off with your student politics shtick, thanks. I didn't say rich people are bad.
Where have I said that BA is a well run company or that Walsh justifies his salary, or that they aren't behaving particularly well
Your penultimate and final sentences seem to contradict somewhat
And if we're on wages, take a look at how much the chaps at UNITE are on. Solidarity indeed.
I made a flippant post about the wages of the top of the management. It wasn't a solidarity with unite thing, it was in reference to your comment about how the strikers were "putting other people's jobs at risk": to my mind the management of BA probably have little incentive to protect those jobs either, so it's fairly News International to just slam it down as the unions stirring trouble again.
But thanks for painting me as Murdoch because I happen to think I don't think the union are behaving too well either.
Your comment was flippant. Mine was obviously 100% literal.
Willie Walsh won’t walk straight onto another board of directors?
whether or not BA went under. You said that that they would be as no one would touch them with a barge pole if BA went under. I suggested that if BA were to go under, Walsh would be able to walk straight on to another board of directors, and wouldn't be cast into the wilderness.
but you've cleared that up now.
I don't think so. He's near rear ended Aer Lingus and BA, the latter, becoming embroiled in a very public and bitter dispute. Not the ideal hire for business or PR reasons
Are you arguing our point or yours?
But I'm a bit tired of the way I've been rounded on here for having a different opinion and saying "Hey, maybe the union aren't a bunch of angels in this mess", so I'm off to feast on the blood of the workers
Sounds more like Berlusconi to me.
i pay £3.50 a month and in the 2 months i've been a member i've got hammered for free and been fed twice. and put on a gig with the union paying for everything.
unions = good thing
unions fucking up travel plans = bad, i'm lucky to have never been affected myself.
I am very, very, lucky. Although, after all this crap, I am not going to relax until my flight has actually landed in Barcelona.
I understand what the unions issues are, I'd support a strike if it was for a day, or a few days. I just don't understand why they're striking for about half a month. Seriously, does anyone know why they are striking for that long? How have they justified it? It seems completely insane.
i assume, i can't think of anything else.
a) hopefully full fuel duty will be slapped on kerosene
b) far less people will be flying cos of personal finance problems and job losses and companies will also be having to save on flights
c) the volcanic cloud means that airlines will be losing out too
SO what better than to secure your job and its conditions for the future than by adding
this will make it more likely that your company will be going to the wall or have to make further cutbacks/changes to working practices to you.....which will make you even more annoyed so you will probably go on strike again.....etc etc