Just curious......

17 May 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
save the quotes
im sure theres a few thousand pole/ruskies who would love to work for BA
so why not let em !! wont work don`t work always someone to fill a job place especially in this day and age

At what stage would you say workers should be protected - when they're living on bread and water?
:laughabove::laughabove:
i must admit during the flight to the maldives this year it was hard trying to reach the toilet for beggers dressed in stewardess uniforms in the isles
and almost impossible to sleep with the sound of a starving steward/ess going through the bins for leftover travel meals
i really don`t think this strike is about anyone starving i do believe these workers/or strikers are /where the amongst the best paid in europe
Irrelevant they have a right to strike in order to optimise their bargaining position,they chose to do so...as has been said,if customers are such a priority to B.A. why will they not negotiate? The inception and the outcome of any strike is as much in the hands of management as the unions.....yet in the eyes of many (and strangely nearly all the media - dunno

) only the unions and the workers are held responsible...shall we talk about double standards ?

17 May 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
save the quotes
im sure theres a few thousand pole/ruskies who would love to work for BA
so why not let em !! wont work don`t work always someone to fill a job place especially in this day and age

At what stage would you say workers should be protected - when they're living on bread and water?
:laughabove::laughabove:
i must admit during the flight to the maldives this year it was hard trying to reach the toilet for beggers dressed in stewardess uniforms in the isles
and almost impossible to sleep with the sound of a starving steward/ess going through the bins for leftover travel meals
i really don`t think this strike is about anyone starving i do believe these workers/or strikers are /where the amongst the best paid in europe
Irrelevant they have a right to strike in order to optimise their bargaining position,they chose to do so...as has been said,if customers are such a priority to B.A. why will they not negotiate? The inception and the outcome of any strike is as much in the hands of management as the unions.....yet in the eyes of many (and strangely nearly all the media - dunno

) only the unions and the workers are held responsible...shall we talk about double standards ?
if that`s the case why strike there are other methods or is ransom now a first choice dunno

17 May 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
save the quotes
im sure theres a few thousand pole/ruskies who would love to work for BA
so why not let em !! wont work don`t work always someone to fill a job place especially in this day and age

At what stage would you say workers should be protected - when they're living on bread and water?
:laughabove::laughabove:
i must admit during the flight to the maldives this year it was hard trying to reach the toilet for beggers dressed in stewardess uniforms in the isles
and almost impossible to sleep with the sound of a starving steward/ess going through the bins for leftover travel meals
i really don`t think this strike is about anyone starving i do believe these workers/or strikers are /where the amongst the best paid in europe
Irrelevant they have a right to strike in order to optimise their bargaining position,they chose to do so...as has been said,if customers are such a priority to B.A. why will they not negotiate? The inception and the outcome of any strike is as much in the hands of management as the unions.....yet in the eyes of many (and strangely nearly all the media) only the unions and the workers are held responsible...shall we talk about double standards ?
I uphold the right of people to be able to strike to protect workers rights and pay. The thing is here, one gets the feeling they may be being greedy. This is what may have lost them some public support. I also worry that by such actions, unions could loose there powers to protect the ones who do really need it dunno

17 May 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
save the quotes
im sure theres a few thousand pole/ruskies who would love to work for BA
so why not let em !! wont work don`t work always someone to fill a job place especially in this day and age

At what stage would you say workers should be protected - when they're living on bread and water?
:laughabove::laughabove:
i must admit during the flight to the maldives this year it was hard trying to reach the toilet for beggers dressed in stewardess uniforms in the isles
and almost impossible to sleep with the sound of a starving steward/ess going through the bins for leftover travel meals
i really don`t think this strike is about anyone starving i do believe these workers/or strikers are /where the amongst the best paid in europe
Irrelevant they have a right to strike in order to optimise their bargaining position,they chose to do so...as has been said,if customers are such a priority to B.A. why will they not negotiate? The inception and the outcome of any strike is as much in the hands of management as the unions.....yet in the eyes of many (and strangely nearly all the media - dunno

) only the unions and the workers are held responsible...shall we talk about double standards ?
if that`s the case why strike there are other methods or is ransom now a first choice dunno

As I'm sure you are well aware a strike is generally (though admittedly not always)the final option....management can be so intransigent don't you know

17 May 2010

The trouble here is quite simple.
People will refuse to fly with BA in the future, and that will not only be to the detriment of the company, but also in the long run....the workers.
Because the people who run BA I am sure are pretty wealthy themselves, and am sure if BA went bust, it will not be the bosses that will struggle financially.
As usual the workers are like lambs to the slaughter.
Correct me if I am wrong here but....did BA not put an offer on the table and was rejected? Then the Government asked them along with UNITE to put that offer back onto the table, which they then refused to do?

17 May 2010

Quote by Staggerlee_BB
save the quotes
im sure theres a few thousand pole/ruskies who would love to work for BA
so why not let em !! wont work don`t work always someone to fill a job place especially in this day and age

At what stage would you say workers should be protected - when they're living on bread and water?
:laughabove::laughabove:
i must admit during the flight to the maldives this year it was hard trying to reach the toilet for beggers dressed in stewardess uniforms in the isles
and almost impossible to sleep with the sound of a starving steward/ess going through the bins for leftover travel meals
i really don`t think this strike is about anyone starving i do believe these workers/or strikers are /where the amongst the best paid in europe
Irrelevant they have a right to strike in order to optimise their bargaining position,they chose to do so...as has been said,if customers are such a priority to B.A. why will they not negotiate? The inception and the outcome of any strike is as much in the hands of management as the unions.....yet in the eyes of many (and strangely nearly all the media -) only the unions and the workers are held responsible...shall we talk about double standards ?
if that`s the case why strike there are other methods or is ransom now a first choice dunno

As I'm sure you are well aware a strike is generally (though admittedly not always)the final option....management can be so intransigent don't you know
this is my point staggs its a no win situation for the unions and the strikers was nothing learned by unions that public opinion did not generally support them
especially if there hard earned holiday gets canceled dunno

17 May 2010

Of course Rob they are not doing it to rob people of their holidays....are they?
Still no worries as I bet the union leaders are fucking spitting feathers as we chat, over the courts decision to ban the strikes.
I can see them now....sitting in their chapels plotting their next moves with the shop stewards screaming like Adolf used too.
I can see it now.
Get the banners out boys. lol

17 May 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
save the quotes
im sure theres a few thousand pole/ruskies who would love to work for BA
so why not let em !! wont work don`t work always someone to fill a job place especially in this day and age

At what stage would you say workers should be protected - when they're living on bread and water?
:laughabove::laughabove:
i must admit during the flight to the maldives this year it was hard trying to reach the toilet for beggers dressed in stewardess uniforms in the isles
and almost impossible to sleep with the sound of a starving steward/ess going through the bins for leftover travel meals
i really don`t think this strike is about anyone starving i do believe these workers/or strikers are /where the amongst the best paid in europe
Irrelevant they have a right to strike in order to optimise their bargaining position,they chose to do so...as has been said,if customers are such a priority to B.A. why will they not negotiate? The inception and the outcome of any strike is as much in the hands of management as the unions.....yet in the eyes of many (and strangely nearly all the media -) only the unions and the workers are held responsible...shall we talk about double standards ?
if that`s the case why strike there are other methods or is ransom now a first choice dunno

As I'm sure you are well aware a strike is generally (though admittedly not always)the final option....management can be so intransigent don't you know
this is my point staggs its a no win situation for the unions and the strikers was nothing learned by unions that public opinion did not generally support them
especially if there hard earned holiday gets canceled dunno

And my point is that this is a double standard a (mainly) media perpetrated lie about the nature of industrial relations...should all workers then just tug their forelocks and be grateful for what scraps their master chooses to throw from the table?

17 May 2010

" should all workers then just tug their forelocks and be grateful for what scraps their master chooses to throw from the table " ?
I cannot believe in 2010 people still hold those views.

17 May 2010

how did this thread staggers evolve into the question of wether airline workers should strike or not ? thought it was about new labour and gordon brown ?
the airline workers and the management at b.a. are caught between a rock and a hard place. too many airlplanes are chasing too few passengers and in the scrum to survive, they all have to cut costs and cosolidate to survive and many wont. this cost cutting exercise by b.a. will be just the beginning.

17 May 2010

Quote by kentswingers777
" should all workers then just tug their forelocks and be grateful for what scraps their master chooses to throw from the table " ?
I cannot believe in 2010 people still hold those views.

It seemed the inevitable conclusion to your comment....I just didn't add 'I cannot believe etc.'

17 May 2010

Quote by gulsonroad30664
how did this thread staggers evolve into the question of wether airline workers should strike or not ? thought it was about new labour and gordon brown ?
the airline workers and the management at b.a. are caught between a rock and a hard place. too many airlplanes are chasing too few passengers and in the scrum to survive, they all have to cut costs and cosolidate to survive and many wont. this cost cutting exercise by b.a. will be just the beginning.

I have no idea....I can only think that sometimes it's easier to go off at a tangent than address the question

17 May 2010

And my point is that this is a double standard a (mainly) media perpetrated lie about the nature of industrial relations...should all workers then just tug their forelocks and be grateful for what scraps their master chooses to throw from the table?
sorry am i missing something these are some of the best paid and well treated workers in the industry
i can`t see a winner in this ???? both sides need heads banging and unite needs bombing
i was always under the impression when i worked for someone that if i didn`t like something then i could go elsewhere more money or better hours less travel and i never held nor wanted to hold an employer to ransom
i also found the better i was at my job the more i was valued sometimes by other companies who wanted to poach my abilities
so im at a loss as to why it has to be this way
dunno

lets hope history doesn`t repeat its self as by listening to the news tonight this country needs all the tax payers it can get :sad:

17 May 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
And my point is that this is a double standard a (mainly) media perpetrated lie about the nature of industrial relations...should all workers then just tug their forelocks and be grateful for what scraps their master chooses to throw from the table?

sorry am i missing something these are some of the best paid and well treated workers in the industry
I suspect deliberately
i can`t see a winner in this ???? both sides need heads banging and unite needs bombing
Both sides do indeed need to question their position though why only the union needs bombing I can't figure
i was always under the impression when i worked for someone that if i didn`t like something then i could go elsewhere more money or better hours less travel and i never held nor wanted to hold an employer to ransom
Have you ever considered that the fact you could move for better pay/conditions may just possibly have something to do with the unions...may just be the result of a strike/negotiation in the past?
i also found the better i was at my job the more i was valued sometimes by other companies who wanted to poach my abilities
so im at a loss as to why it has to be this way

lets hope history doesn`t repeat its self as by listening to the news tonight this country needs all the tax payers it can get :sad:

17 May 2010

Have you ever considered that the fact you could move for better pay/conditions may just possibly have something to do with the unions...may just be the result of a strike/negotiation in the past?
not in my industry but i do see your point
i employ now i also pay the highest in the south the reason for this is i want the best working for me which i do and i can honestly say that
reason simple a company is only as good as its last job if you have the best in the industry then you will turn out the best work in the industry

17 May 2010

Having read the last five pages I'm not sure I'm any the wiser.
Working for organisation that is not allowed to strike or have a union, and not having a problem with this arrangement, I suppose I can't see the argument to justify strike action.
I suppose being brought up to believe the world doesn't owe me a living means that if I want to work for money from my employer, I do what my employer wants me to do. I can negotiate, even complain, but ultimately if I'm not prepared to do the work, or collect the offered wage, then I should fuck off and find some other work.
Now that's very simplistic I know, but as I said, I've no experience being in a union, or being in an organisation that has them, so I can only draw from your remarks and links, and the effect that strike action has on me personally.
You comments are enlightening, the links are interesting, and some time the effects of strike action are bloody annoying and even nasty.
The last fireman's strike that was called, the effect of which was to risk lives, and fuck around the military who were at the time, deploying to a war. Clever by the union, thinking that the military wouldn't be used to cover the strike as the war would take priority, but as usual, the military just get on with it.
Hence, here now sits a man who should have no preconceived ideas about what's right and wrong with unions, who should be able to listen to both sides,the differing points of views, and form opinions based on this; who instead has only ever been inconvenienced by strike action, and now as a default setting takes the sides of the bosses without even knowing all the facts.
Now I'm not a simpleton, and the fact I can spot my own bigoted views of unions based on limited information, makes me think how many other people out there are influenced the same way?
Strikes that fuck around other "workers" probably don't do the union members much good in the long term, and just turn us off to actually listening to the real grievance...
Sorry, rambling now.. I'll get my coat.................

17 May 2010

I have always thought that a strike that doesn't inconvenience the general public a bit of a non-starter IMO. If it didn't inconvenience them then they wouldn't care.
Dave_Notts

17 May 2010

Quote by Dave__Notts
I have always thought that a strike that doesn't inconvenience the general public a bit of a non-starter IMO. If it didn't inconvenience them then they wouldn't care.
Dave_Notts

And when it does inconvenience us, some of us care even less, or worse sympathise with the bosses and think the strikers are just being selfish. Doesn't seem a clever way of doing things if after the action is over, they need public support to pay their newly negotiated wages.

17 May 2010

Quote by Suffolk-cpl
I have always thought that a strike that doesn't inconvenience the general public a bit of a non-starter IMO. If it didn't inconvenience them then they wouldn't care.
Dave_Notts

And when it does inconvenience us, some of us care even less, or worse sympathise with the bosses and think the strikers are just being selfish. Doesn't seem a clever way of doing things if after the action is over, they need public support to pay their newly negotiated wages.
Say I was the striker and you were the public.
In my world (Daves' mind working overtime now), would I give a shit what you thought as long as it got me what I needed. This could be anything from a 50% pay increase to as little as 25p extra an hour to bring me up to a level where I could feed my kids and clothe them instead of one or the other.
Do I need your support? Never worked in the past. Now when the public have been inconvenienced then they sit up and listen. Then they will make noise, either in support of the strike or against it. Either way, I would have the desired effect. I now have it in the public eye and in the news. As for needing the public support to pay my new wages.......if they want the things I produce then they will support it, if they don't then the company goes to the wall.
Daves simple view of striking. This has not been researched or actually thought through.......this has just popped into my head, so no newspapers are to blame lol

Dave_Notts

18 May 2010

Quote by Kaznkev
The firemen went on strike because the government cut staffing levels to such an extent that peoples lives are now in are judged acceptable in living 20 minutes away from a staffed military in their green goddeses were untrained and in the opinion of firemen a danger to themselves and the people they were trying to they had been concerned about lives they would heve made this clear to the politicians ordering thenm to do a job they were not trained for.
TThe union begged the government not to put troops lives in danger,you are forgeting or ignoring the fact that many firemen are ex military,the major reason that the troops were not allowed to use fire engines is the fact they were totally untrained .The FBU simply wanted to keep best practice,the government decided how the strike was dealt with

Sorry, as I said, my limited opinions were formed by the effect strikers had on me and people I care about.
The military get on with what ever job they are tasked with, it is something we pride ourselves on, so making it clear that we are untrained (or poorly equipped and limited training) to put out fires is a bit redundant. our political masters KNOW we are untrained, but it was either that, or NO cover.
As for begging the government not to put lives in danger? I would think of course they didn't want the Army doing the job, it undermines the strike as life goes as normal for most people, as there is fire cover........
If the unions REALLY gave a damn about the troops, they would have picked days that DIDN'T forces troops to cover during an OP Tour changeover, meaning blokes missed leave before and straight after a tour.
Rightly or wrongly, it's the opinion of many squaddies and their families that it was about the Firemen wanting to keep their cushy shifts so they could keep their second job. Normally I wouldn't care one way or another, in fact, as firemen were then held in high esteem I would probably have sympathy with their plight, but not now. Don't even give to them when they rattle their bucket at Christmas.
Hence why I wondered if strikes were the best mechanism for sorting out issues.

18 May 2010

Quote by Suffolk-cpl

The firemen went on strike because the government cut staffing levels to such an extent that peoples lives are now in are judged acceptable in living 20 minutes away from a staffed military in their green goddeses were untrained and in the opinion of firemen a danger to themselves and the people they were trying to they had been concerned about lives they would heve made this clear to the politicians ordering thenm to do a job they were not trained for.
TThe union begged the government not to put troops lives in danger,you are forgeting or ignoring the fact that many firemen are ex military,the major reason that the troops were not allowed to use fire engines is the fact they were totally untrained .The FBU simply wanted to keep best practice,the government decided how the strike was dealt with

Sorry, as I said, my limited opinions were formed by the effect strikers had on me and people I care about.
The military get on with what ever job they are tasked with, it is something we pride ourselves on, so making it clear that we are untrained (or poorly equipped and limited training) to put out fires is a bit redundant. our political masters KNOW we are untrained, but it was either that, or NO cover.
As for begging the government not to put lives in danger? I would think of course they didn't want the Army doing the job, it undermines the strike as life goes as normal for most people, as there is fire cover........
If the unions REALLY gave a damn about the troops, they would have picked days that DIDN'T forces troops to cover during an OP Tour changeover, meaning blokes missed leave before and straight after a tour.
Rightly or wrongly, it's the opinion of many squaddies and their families that it was about the Firemen wanting to keep their cushy shifts so they could keep their second job. Normally I wouldn't care one way or another, in fact, as firemen were then held in high esteem I would probably have sympathy with their plight, but not now. Don't even give to them when they rattle their bucket at Christmas.
Hence why I wondered if strikes were the best mechanism for sorting out issues.
:thumbup:
general public`s perception is important and with all the money unite gets paid they cant even organise a legal ballot so i stand by my they need bombing statement
id be asking why my subs are being mismanaged

18 May 2010

Quote by Suffolk-cpl
The military get on with what ever job they are tasked with, it is something we pride ourselves on, so making it clear that we are untrained (or poorly equipped and limited training) to put out fires is a bit redundant.

They military do not have a choice whether they want to or not. Their political masters tell them and they do. That is what they signed up for.
They do a good job but they remove their choice when they take the shilling.
Dave_Notts

18 May 2010

Quote by Lizaleanrob
general public`s perception is important and with all the money unite gets paid they cant even organise a legal ballot so i stand by my they need bombing statement
id be asking why my subs are being mismanaged

The ballot was legal.
The court decision was based upon a technical argument: The unions inability to PROVE that each member had been notified.
Notices were posted at work premises.
The post was used.
Emails were used, and text messages were used. The union could not PROVE to the court that EACH member had been INDIVIDUALLY notified.
As that decision is, and if it stands, then each union member would have to individually reply to the union that they had received the union ballot results.
The PREVIOUS court injunction by BA (Christmas) was also on a technicality: That some union members had voted in the ballot after they had accepted redundancy (as some said...the company withheld sending-out the redundancy notices until after the ballot, deliberately)
The company (any unionised company) could, if it fancied its chances, legally hold a de-recognition ballot to test the waters for de-unionisation. The costs would be met by the government.
They haven't tried this yet, but it would be one way of halting industrial action and so is probably slated for the future.
Since the last government, Labour, was the most anti-worker government for the past 30 years, everyone is waiting to see what the present government is like.

18 May 2010

Quote by JTS

general public`s perception is important and with all the money unite gets paid they cant even organise a legal ballot so i stand by my they need bombing statement
id be asking why my subs are being mismanaged

The ballot was legal.
The court decision was based upon a technical argument: The unions inability to PROVE that each member had been notified.
Notices were posted at work premises.
The post was used.
Emails were used, and text messages were used. The union could not PROVE to the court that EACH member had been INDIVIDUALLY notified.
As that decision is, and if it stands, then each union member would have to individually reply to the union that they had received the union ballot results.
The PREVIOUS court injunction by BA (Christmas) was also on a technicality: That some union members had voted in the ballot after they had accepted redundancy (as some said...the company withheld sending-out the redundancy notices until after the ballot, deliberately)
The company (any unionised company) could, if it fancied its chances, legally hold a de-recognition ballot to test the waters for de-unionisation. The costs would be met by the government.
They haven't tried this yet, but it would be one way of halting industrial action and so is probably slated for the future.
Since the last government, Labour, was the most anti-worker government for the past 30 years, everyone is waiting to see what the present government is like.
so did that technical argument make the strike ballot legal or not if it made it legal then the strike would have been allowed to stand technical or not dunno

18 May 2010

12 Jul 2010

Quote by awayman
But there seems to be very little comment on the Labour party's apparent good faith in refusing to water down their election promises in order to get into bed with the Libdems.
So much for Gordon Browns supposed clinging on to power whatever the cost

Gordon Brown would have clung to power given the chance, I don't think there was any doubt about that but Labour have been very cute. By opening negotiations with the LibDems, they were able to remove Brown, as Clegg had publicly stated he wouldn't work with Brown. Brown allowed himself to be persuaded to quit a little to early in the proceedings. Anyone who believes that he quit of his own volition is living in cloud cuckoo land.
The rest of the Labour hierarchy ( Mandelson et al) then decided it was time to regroup and allow the Tories to take the drastic measures required, thinking that they would very soon be returned to power with a new leader..........but maybe Cameron has been even more cute by fixing the term of this parliament for 5 years?
I'm sure you believe this, but do you have any evidence for it? Your reasoning appears to owe more to Rolf Harris's paintbrush than Occams's razor.
It would appear Mr Harris' paintbrush lost none of the detail.

12 Jul 2010

Quote by Max777
But there seems to be very little comment on the Labour party's apparent good faith in refusing to water down their election promises in order to get into bed with the Libdems.
So much for Gordon Browns supposed clinging on to power whatever the cost

Gordon Brown would have clung to power given the chance, I don't think there was any doubt about that but Labour have been very cute. By opening negotiations with the LibDems, they were able to remove Brown, as Clegg had publicly stated he wouldn't work with Brown. Brown allowed himself to be persuaded to quit a little to early in the proceedings. Anyone who believes that he quit of his own volition is living in cloud cuckoo land.
The rest of the Labour hierarchy ( Mandelson et al) then decided it was time to regroup and allow the Tories to take the drastic measures required, thinking that they would very soon be returned to power with a new leader..........but maybe Cameron has been even more cute by fixing the term of this parliament for 5 years?
I'm sure you believe this, but do you have any evidence for it? Your reasoning appears to owe more to Rolf Harris's paintbrush than Occams's razor.
It would appear Mr Harris' paintbrush lost none of the detail.

also available for painting egg onto faces :giggle::giggle:

12 Jul 2010

Seems the same people are wrong as usual.
You just cannot get away with it nowadays. wink

Are you sure?