British Airways cabin crew vote for Christmas strike

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

I can hardly believe that you of all people Damien believe the answer to a strike is to sack the entire workforce if management fails to get its way, holy crap why not go back to Victorian work practices?

In a time were unemployment is rising, employees not recieving pay rises or taking pay cuts, and worst case losing there jobs.

Do you think that BA should back down then?

They should count themselves bloody lucky to have a job. IMHO BA should say "Strike and your fired".

[martyh]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

In a time were unemployment is rising, employees not recieving pay rises or taking pay cuts, and worst case losing there jobs.

Do you think that BA should back down then?

They should count themselves bloody lucky to have a job. IMHO BA should say "Strike and your fired".

wether you agree with the strike or not in these times employees rights have to protected more than ever .Empoyers know that they have plenty of unemployed people out there to choose from so the threat of sacking is hanging over empoyees heads all the time and quite frankly an awfull lot of companies are readily using that threat to remove bonuses and force people to take pay cuts

Strike and your fired is not an option for BA or any company

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

In a time were unemployment is rising, employees not recieving pay rises or taking pay cuts, and worst case losing there jobs.

Do you think that BA should back down then?

They should count themselves bloody lucky to have a job. IMHO BA should say "Strike and your fired".

Perhaps they do count themselves lucky which is why they are fighting to keep their jobs and conditions. Got any other opinions, like scrapping health and saftey in the work place or employing minors?

[Hom3r]

So striking in a resession, in an industry which has suffered (especially after the clousure of european air space for 6 days, which cost BA £20m per day http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...ption-activity) is acceptable?

So what will they do if BA was to fold? they would struggle to find employment in avaition ever again.

As for H&S they should scrapp lots of it (I was a H&S rep for the comany I worked for) as a lot if it is completly pointless.

---------- Post added at 18:20 ---------- Previous post was at 18:19 ----------

Being out of work I'ld be happy to for there so called "small" salary.

[martyh]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

So striking in a resession, in an industry which has suffered (especially after the clousure of european air space for 6 days, which cost BA £20m per day http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...ption-activity) is acceptable?

So what will they do if BA was to fold? they would struggle to find employment in avaition ever again.

As for H&S they should scrapp lots of it (I was a H&S rep for the comany I worked for) as a lot if it is completly pointless.

---------- Post added at 18:20 ---------- Previous post was at 18:19 ----------

Being out of work I'ld be happy to for there so called "small" salary.

what about workers who have a genuine reason to strike ,sacking BA workers for striking would mean changing the law which would affect all workers ...including you

[Maggy J]

Originally Posted by martyh

wether you agree with the strike or not in these times employees rights have to protected more than ever .Empoyers know that they have plenty of unemployed people out there to choose from so the threat of sacking is hanging over empoyees heads all the time and quite frankly an awfull lot of companies are readily using that threat to remove bonuses and force people to take pay cuts

Strike and your fired is not an option for BA or any company

They 'll probably go back to the Agency way of doing business.

[martyh]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

They 'll probably go back to the Agency way of doing business.

this is true ,also true for other industries i have noticed within the construction industry there are a lot more agency workers on the sites

[TheDaddy]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

So striking in a resession, in an industry which has suffered (especially after the clousure of european air space for 6 days, which cost BA £20m per day http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010...ption-activity) is acceptable?

Of course it's acceptable if they have held a legal ballot.

So what will they do if BA was to fold? they would struggle to find employment in avaition ever again.

BA wont fold, if there was any chance of it they'd be round the table talking

As for H&S they should scrapp lots of it (I was a H&S rep for the comany I worked for) as a lot if it is completly pointless.

Which bits, the bit that saved 70 000 serious industrial accidents and deaths a year? The H&S act is one of the very best pieces of legislation ever brought in despite what the tabloids whould have us believe in recent years.

Being out of work I'ld be happy to for there so called "small" salary

They aren't striking over money and if all those moaning about them being well paid concentrated more on improving their own T's&C's rather than being envious the whole industry might be a bit fairer for all.

---------- Post added at 19:54 ---------- Previous post was at 19:52 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

what about workers who have a genuine reason to strike ,sacking BA workers for striking would mean changing the law which would affect all workers ...including you

They have a genuine reason to strike, they wouldn't do it if they didn't.

[LondonRoad]

I've posted often enough about Walsh's tactics. His intent is, and always has been, to break the union. There have been several occasions when there has almost been a deal brokered only for Walsh to scupper it.

I'm not a big fan of Simpson or Woodley of Unite but they've showed remarkable restraint at times in the way that they, and their members, have been treated by this obnoxious little sh--.

There's cleverer people than me can see the potential damage Walsh is doing.
A link I posted in another anti-union thread back in March that is still relevant:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...cademics-walsh

"The wider significance of a triumph of unilateral management prerogative would be a widening of the representation gap in UK employment relations, and a further erosion of worker rights and of that most precious of commodities – democracy." (my enbolden)

I'm assuming that some of these experts in industrial relations who signed this open letter know what they're talking about.

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Which bits, the bit that saved 70 000 serious industrial accidents and deaths a year? The H&S act is one of the very best pieces of legislation ever brought in despite what the tabloids whould have us believe in recent years.

Well on a personal case.

We had a Air Traffic Control cabinet which had to be moved from the first floor to the factory floor, I spent two hours with another safety rep walking the route the cabinet would have to take (Risk Assesment), including a lift (the cabinet was close to the weight limit of it).

Once this was done we went through the route with two guys who moved the cabinet, this took 10 minutes.

The cost 2 hours time of safety reps £45, the guys who moved £5.

IMHO every rick assesment was pointless, common sense was not aloud.

Plus the ones on food:

On peanuts, "May Contain Nuts" (peanuts aren't actually nuts, there legumes (like peas and beans))

On McDonalds Hot apple pie, and hot drink packaging, "Warning contents may be hot"

There are loads of usless H&S rules, that have turned this country into a nanny state.

[LondonRoad]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

Well on a personal case.

We had a Air Traffic Control cabinet which had to be moved from the first floor to the factory floor, I spent two hours with another safety rep walking the route the cabinet would have to take (Risk Assesment), including a lift (the cabinet was close to the weight limit of it).

Once this was done we went through the route with two guys who moved the cabinet, this took 10 minutes.

The cost 2 hours time of safety reps £45, the guys who moved £5.

What cost if the assessment isn't taken?

Two guys move the cabinet without the RA. OOOps Can't get it round the corner of the corridor..... fire route blocked.... fill in your own scenario here..

That is the WHOLE point of risk assessment. If the assessment concludes that there is no risk then the exercise has been as worthwhile as the RA that suggests there may be a danger of the ... whatever... The risk is then categorised for the level of risk..

ffs... that is the process that we now have to go through because, historically, employers have been so gung-ho about the H&S of their employees (Employers:that's those folk who advertise in the likes of the Daily Mail so they can twist the minds of their...doh ... reader... Employess: Dems the ones who we need H&S regulations for so that they don't get, fried, burnt, crippled...... and even in 2010 KILLED)

I could be really tedious now and quote you some horrendous figures but I'm sure if you really wanted a true picture by now you'd have resorted to Google.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by Hom3er

Plus the ones on food:

On peanuts, "May Contain Nuts" (peanuts aren't actually nuts, there legumes (like peas and beans))

On McDonalds Hot apple pie, and hot drink packaging, "Warning contents may be hot"

There are loads of usless H&S rules, that have turned this country into a nanny state.

These are the daily mails favourites, the same old tired examples they peddle out to suit their agenda,I doubt these instructions are even H&S related I'd hazard a guess its companies covering their backsides in case some chancer tries to sue them.
As regards BA workers feeling lucky they have a job dear oh dear that is so condescending, what about Walsh has he got no responsibility for extending this strike?
And finally are you really saying that any employee should not have the right to strike in a recession?
The people in question are not Neanderthal morons who felt like a few weeks off so went on strike!! this dispute has been in the works for years now until finally after all reasonable options were exhausted over 90% of the cabin crew voted for a legitimate strike. Maybe you should be asking why Walsh is being so intransigent over re-instating the travel concessions? the original dispute has been settled as far as I can see, the reason the dispute is continuing only Walsh can say.

[martyh]

[QUOTE=TheDaddy;35065010]

They have a genuine reason to strike, they wouldn't do it if they didn't.

sorry poor choice of words on my part ,the members in the BA strike do feel they have a genuine case for striking ,doesn't realy matter if i or others agree or disagree with the reasons it was balloted and is legal so the members have the right to strike ,and imo that right must be maintained more so in difficult times

Hom3er,
working on building sites as i do i have a great deal to do with H&S and sometimes they do seem a bit ott and yes they do contradict their own rules sometimes ,and yes i do winge about them sometimes ...but without them workplace deaths/injuries would be through the roof .

[beeman]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

this dispute has been in the works for years now until finally after all reasonable options were exhausted over 90% of the cabin crew voted for a legitimate strike. Maybe you should be asking why Walsh is being so intransigent over re-instating the travel concessions? the original dispute has been settled as far as I can see, the reason the dispute is continuing only Walsh can say.

Thats a MAJOR fallacy in your argument, 90% of BA CC did NOT vote for a strike. ONLY 90% of BASSA members voted to strike. members directly represented by UNITE and (of cause) none union members ACCEPTED the terms. hens why ONLY heathrow flights were affected by the strike (gatwick and london city bases were completely unaffected (except knock on affects)).

From what i understand WW has no problem with UNITE and is happy to work with them. its is UNITES far left (they work very closely with the socialist worker) origination BASSA (which is a legacy union that merged with UNITE, while keeping its own identity many years ago).

It should also bee noted that the staff travel perk HAS been reinstated (in a limited fashion) to strikers who accept the current agreement. Renistating FULL travel perk would cause MORE industrial relations issues then it solves. The VAST majority of BA staff ditest the strikers and do not what to see BASSA "win".

I strongly suggest reading the topic on pprnune that was posted above to see how the rest of the BA staff feel about the strikers as that site is populated by LOTS of BA staff members.

[LondonRoad]

It's just about over. It's amazing what can happen when both sides are prepared to negotiate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13373638