h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Anyone got any opinions on this? Just wanted to know as I have worked for them now for three decades, and I am sick to death of the Unions that are hell bent on a fight at any cost. There is an overwhelming majority of us here who do not want to take any action at all, but our future and company is being held to ransom by a bunch of marxists who do not care for anything or anyone. All they want is a fight.
I used to be a senior union rep in the past, but this unsavoury bunch of trouble makers make my skin crawl.
The passengers are being treated as ammunition and it is grossly unfair.
If I had my way, anyone who strikes should be sacked on the spot. I have had enough of management being "Nice". It is about time management went on the attack and destroyed these thugs once and for all.

I'm not in a union, and never have been, so forgive the naivety - but surely if the "overwhelming majority" don't want to take action, why not just ignore your Marxist buddies and just turn up for work as normal?

Kind of the point of a union is that it represents its members, isn't it? And if this one isn't, well, ignore them. You don't HAVE to go on strike.

I have to say I'm fascinated to hear an ex-union rep advocate the sacking of strikers. Not judging that comment one way or the other, just interested to see it being made.

H.

Hi

Be assured that those who have not expressed a wish to strike will continue to work as normal - the problem is that even the threat of a strike is enough to make passengers book elsewhere.
That is the problem - declaring the intention to strike is almost as good as doing so. Plans have to be made and implemented in advance of the strike day itself, so even if they call it off at the 11th hour, flights will still be cancelled resulting in chaos.
It is this guerilla action that appalls me the most. The aviation industry is in a fragile enough state as it is, never mind a whole company being threatened by a small number of militants. Extremists are running the show now and all reason has gone out the window.

Unions are there to represent the rights of the workforce, management is there to maximise profit fot the company. This is a symbiotic relationship though, not inescapably one of armed aggression, and once everyone realises it then everyone benefits.

To call a strike it is necessary to hold a ballot of the workforce. How is it the union got a mandate to strike from a workforce which claims: "there is an overwhelming majority of us here who do not want to take any action at all"? Why did they vote 'yes' when they meant 'no'?

If there was no ballot the strike is illegal and the union can be severely penalised, not excluding dismissal of the activists.

F

Two votes have been held that represent some 50% of the workforce.
The GMB vote was a 52% for yes on a 48% turnout. If you do the math, that means they have gone to war on a 1 in 4 staff voting to strike.
The T&G was a higher percentage (in the 80's I believe) but even so, the unions voting to strike represent about only 50% of the airline.

Because of this "Minority" the customers, the airlines reputation and its profitability is all going to suffer. The ballots were held on the basis of the first wage offer. An improved offer was made this week meeting the unions demand for 14.5% over three years. They refuse to re-ballot on the improved offer, and thus the strike threat remains.
This is not fair by any standards.

I am a union member.

I have taken strike action.

I was a school caretaker and my action shut the school for a day and interupted the education of those children for one day. It cost me a days wages and the kind of comments from colleagues that The Doctor has made.

On balance I think it was worth it. I came out because the lowest paid workers were getting below five pounds an hour for essential work that not only enhanced the bouroughs services but fundamentally contributed EVERYTHING the council does beings safe and healthy. The workers in question were almost entirely women and the pay of women in the work place is a cause worth losing a days pay and interuppting others schooling over. As for the comments I received well if the people who made them were being nice about me I'd think I was doing something "wrong".

Now if these BA staff who are going to strike cant be replaced by other staff on the day then its quite clear that what they do is important. If the industry cant pay imnportant staff a decen wage then it should raise prices to pay their wages and if the industry cant survive with prices at that level then it ought go to the wall like any other industry.

I care not one jot for the "misery" of holiday makers. Real missery is starvation and war. "Chaos" is not a few hours in an airport not being sure when you are jetting off to spend a few weeks relaxing on the beach or in a traffic jam on an approach road. Chaos is the near total break down of law and order and infrastructure that cant cope on a day to day basis not just during a strike in peak season.

If the union is that bad it will lose members and collapse it hasnt so obvioulsy its members are OK with what's happening.

You are'nt Doctor and I hope you have made your protests and points elsewhere to people who count.

one love

Thankyou Blickybadger

I too have taken strike action in the past. The difference here today in the post 9/11 world of aviation with runaway fuel costs is that many airlines are on the knife edge of going bankrupt. In this country, we do not have the luxury of Chapter 11 protection as they do in the States. We are not propped up by Government payouts which is quite correct - we either fly or die according to market forces.

In that climate, where massive loss making airlines in the states are protected from bankruptcy (and can sell tickets well below cost under that protection) is it right that the actions of a few strikers out for punch up could potentially bring BA into receivership?

In short yes.

I too think that air travel is priced artificially cheaply.

I think there should be fewer flights, though competition is important for consumers I realise that fewer flights mean fewer airlines realistically and I refuse to get sentimental over our nations flag barer.

Treating your staff and your customers right is essential to running a good business and if you cant do that then you shouldnt be in the business.

If the guys who are running BA were getting things right this wouldnt be happening but they are and part of their business is getting government support either in cash or in pushing for the US to provide a level playing feild.

one love

Blickybadger

I will cut to the chase as I am interested in your view on this.
1: First pay offer was rejected, and on the basis of that, they vote to strike.
2: Second improved pay offer is made that MEETS the unions requirement for 14.5% over three years
3: Unions REFUSE to ballot members over new improved deal (Which meets what they were demanding by the way - have I mentioned that?), and STILL carry on with threatening strike.

If somebody gives you exactly what you were asking for, would you punch him in the face? The only logical conclusion is that the Unions want to have a punch up.
If any sane person can explain to me the rationale and logic behind the Unions stand on this, then please do so.

Failing that - I have a plan that they should like.
The airline offers the union any percentage above the 14.5% payrise they like. No, really. If they went for, say 20%, then they would be told how many staff being laid off that equates to - say, 5,000.
If they want 25%, then that would be 15,000 laid off.
Quite a simple formula - but just as insane as the policy they are pursuing now.

No its not the only logical conclusion!

Obviously the union are out to ge the best deal they can for their members. Now we can all see that the management have had to conceed ground and in this negotiation have put themselves over a barrel.

Negotiations are as much about spin and bluff as they are about logical conclusiions and if not moreso about spin and bluff.

The union looks like it might come out of this quite well in the short term but as you point out in the long term job cuts might be the price of better pay?

No union wants a fight it wants its way. the Management wanted to offer what it wanted and now looks to have put itself in a weak position time will tell.

one love

Right first of all before I post I must admit that I am a union rep myself and therefore partizan.

However a couple of points:-

"The GMB vote was a 52% for yes on a 48% turnout. If you do the math, that means they have gone to war on a 1 in 4 staff voting to strike."

I always laugh when this kind of thing is said in ballots, management always trot out the argument "Only 1-4 people want to strike" this has an assumption that all the people who didnt vote would have voted no.

Secondly I always have a *massive* problem with what is reported about industrial action in the media. THe media has a unfailing pro employer bias in how these things are reported. Often the opposite is true to what is being reported (for example during the miners strike when the beeb showed pictures of the police charging strikers after stones were thrown, the reality is that this actually happened the other way around).

Also there is no reason any more why people *have* to strike. The last industrial action at our work several union members worked and remained in the union and suffered no hardship for it. If workers dont want to strike they dont.

I also think it is a fallacy that people want to strike, look when you strike you dont get paid simple as that. Most people cannot afford to loose pay (these airport workers apparantly earn the princly sum of 9-15 thousand a year). However people sometimes take the difficult decision to loose pay and risk their jobs because they have to.

"Failing that - I have a plan that they should like.
The airline offers the union any percentage above the 14.5% payrise they like. No, really. If they went for, say 20%, then they would be told how many staff being laid off that equates to - say, 5,000.
If they want 25%, then that would be 15,000 laid off.
Quite a simple formula - but just as insane as the policy they are pursuing now."

What a lot of total tosh. Look BA are *MAKING* money, not loosing it any more. So why cant they pay the staff more? Call me an lefty if you like but AFAIK BA can have a bit less profit if it means there workers get a better life. Sod the shareholder pay the workers.

Also I pbject to the "touble makers forcing action on the workers" thing.

Unions are democratic (well insofar as they have elections). Reps and negociators have to be voted in and can be voted out. Any agreement has to be subject to a ballot as does any kind of industrial action. If the membership disagrees with what the union are doing it is very easy for them to do something about it.

"I used to be a senior union rep in the past"

In the contect of:-

"but this unsavoury bunch of trouble makers make my skin crawl."

"If I had my way, anyone who strikes should be sacked on the spot. I have had enough of management being "Nice". It is about time management went on the attack and destroyed these thugs once and for all."

I have known hundreds of union people and I have never met a rep with that attitude. If you think so little of people in the union how the heck did you get elected.

Personally I think you are talking cr*p, no way do I believe you were ever a rep on the strength of what you have said. A management stooge perhaps but a rep no way.

Also what you are saying is not true, the following is quoted from the BBC news item about this:-

"The airline had offered a revised deal of an 8.5% pay rise as well as a one-off payment of £1,000 if they take less than 16 days sick leave between October 2004 and September 2006."

So a one off payment linked to asick absence? No way does this constitute a 14% payrise.

Ferretbadger

Yes, I was a rep and I represented my members to the best of my ability for two years.
The difference with me was that I put the members interests first and foremost, and not my own ego which is what is/was going on with the GMB and the T&G last week. When ego's are unleashed, then common sense leaves the building - still, it all appears to be over now so maybe we can get back to some kind of sanity.

?!?!

Well you sure dont sound like the kind of guy I would want representing me or my members.

re: "If I had my way, anyone who strikes should be sacked on the spot."

I think it is worth remembering that the baggage handlers earn £14,000 and check in or admin staff earn £11,000 or £12,000. These workers (pretty pitiful money if you ask me) trying to improve their lots in life and you think they should be sacked for asking for more than 8.5% or three years?

From a company that posted a £115 million pound *profit* for three months to June?????

Forgive me if I hold you in contempt for thinking this, but I am sure you can read all about how greedy they are in the Daily Mail and feel better about yourself...

Thankyou for your comments, and please feel free to continue holding me in contempt.
With the greatest respect, unless you work for BA then you do not have the full picture. I could go on ad nauseum and into minute detail on why I felt the way I did, but it would serve no purpose here as you have your entrenched views and I have mine.
All I will say is that regarding the "Pitifull" amounts some of the staff are paid, you forget to add on the shift allowance of £3000 plus. Then the overtime. The total amount is still in excess of some of our competitors.
There are times when strike action is absolutely the way to go - but this was not the time or the place to threaten such action when there were still a lot of avenues to explore and negotiation to do.
To immediately jump to the strike option without any consideration of the intermediate action SHORT of Striking is reckless in the extreme.
Under the circumstances the company is in - and I say again that unless you work for BA then you have no idea what you are talking about - then to immediately go from zero to strike is very bad advice.

Well no, I do not work for BA so I do not know about th dispute in detail, however I do know that even if you add a £3000 shift bonus £14-17k is not a lot of money for workers in the S.East.

I also know a *lot* about industrial relations. One of the things I know is that holding a ballot and naming a date for ind action does not necessarily lead to a strike. In fact it is one of the most effective negociating tools a union has.

When a Union gets a big yes ballot, the business inevitably comes up with a offer (as proved by the dispute being solved) and the members have got a better deal! Great, good job right wing pro management folkslike you were not doing the negociation as the workers would not have got as good a pay deal as they did.

I take it you will be refusing the extra money as it came from the tactics employed by the "Marxists" who make "your skin crawl"? Hmmm didn't think so.

"I take it you will be refusing the extra money as it came from the tactics employed by the "Marxists" who make "your skin crawl"? Hmmm didn't think so"

Well, if you have knowledge og Industrial relations then you know that in a company such as BA it is collective bargaining so everyone gets the sme deal. For what it is worth, personally I have not had a rise for seven years. This is because I was declared surplus - my money stayed at what I was on, but I moved to a lower grade on a personal differential. It has taken this long for subsequent pay rises to gradually get my "Real" money up to what I was earning 7 years ago.
Having said that I would still have accepted the original deal purely because the subsequent strike threat has cost us god knows what in cancelled bookings, share price plunging, etc, etc.

To appreciate how knife edge the aviation industry is at the moment, take a look at the following verbatim news items - maybe you will then understand why any disruption is very bad news for all employees:

DELTA WORKERS BANNED FROM INVESTING IN AIRLINE STOCK

The risk of bankruptcy at Delta Air Lines has grown so high that its employees have been barred from making investments in the airline's stock through their retirement plan. The decision was made earlier this month by US. Trust Corp., an independent financial adviser that was recently appointed to manage the Delta Stock Fund, a fund available in Delta's 401(k) retirement plan that invests only in shares of the airline.
US Trust was also tapped to oversee Delta's Employee Stock Ownership Plan, which the airline uses to match a portion of employees' retirement contribution with Delta stock. Previously, those funds had been overseen by a committee of directors from Delta's board.
Delta has lost £1.98 billion ($3.6bn) since 2000, and most analysts believe it will be in bankruptcy by the end of the year if it cannot cut costs substantially.
Airline officials did not return calls Friday for this story. Neither did US Trust officials.

In an August 9 letter to employees, US Trust said that "because of the very serious financial difficulties that Delta is currently facing," it was freezing the Delta Stock Fund. That means employees cannot put any more contributions into that fund, or transfer money into it from other funds in their 401(k) plans.

U.S. Trust cited "the widely recognized possibility of bankruptcy if Delta were to fail in its restructuring efforts."
When a company files for bankruptcy, its stock generally loses all its value. Delta's stock price has dropped 65% in the last year.
Officials with Delta's pilots' union, which is negotiating a request for £55 million ($1bn) in concessions with airline management, declined to comment. The firm said it will consider terminating the Delta stock fund entirely. In that case, the shares would be sold and the proceeds distributed elsewhere in employee 401(k) plans.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
HIGH OIL PRICE RISKS BRINGING DOWN US AIRLINES

High oil prices, bubbling near 50 dollars a barrel in New York, threaten to take down US airlines, which barely survived the September 11, 2001 attacks, analysts say. "We believe high oil prices and price wars on transcontinental routes have contributed to weakness in airline stocks," said New York-based credit rating agency Standard and Poor's.
Major US carriers have been squeezed by diminishing profit margins, unable to push up prices as far as their European competitors because of intense competition on domestic routes, reports Terranet.
"Before, there used to be only majors on the East-West coast routes. Now you have (budget carriers) JetBlue, Southwest, America West," said an analyst at Thomson Financial.

Delta Airlines, number three in the United States, is struggling to restructure its debt and has repeatedly dodged the threat of bankruptcy while prodding workers to tighten their belts.
Since 2001, Delta, with one of the highest cost bases in the industry, has accumulated nearly £3.3 billion (US$6bn) in losses.
US Airways, which was in bankruptcy for seven months between 2002 and 2003, is on the verge of tipping back into the Bankruptcy Court's arms.
The carrier is hoping employees will approve wage cuts amounting to £440m (US$800m) a year.
The negotiations are difficult, raising the risk of a new bankruptcy in September if the airline is unable to secure new concessions by then, Standard and Poor's said.

Finally, UAL, the parent of United Airlines, the second-biggest carrier, is still trapped in bankruptcy where it landed in December 2002.
After the US administration turned down UAL's request of a £88m (US$1.6bn) federal loan guarantee, UAL has warned it may have to default on payments to its employee pension scheme.
"We have taken every effort to restructure our business without affecting accrued pension benefits, and will continue to explore every other option," United spokeswoman Jean Medina said.
"However, given the magnitude of further cost reductions needed to create a viable business plan and attract exit financing, termination and replacement of all our defined benefit pension plans likely will be required."

Scott Jacobson, stock market strategist at Jefferies and Co, said the rise in airline fuel prices is accelerating a restructuring of the industry in which low-cost carriers such as JetBlue or Southwest are competing on a broader scale with the higher-cost traditional carriers.
Budget carriers are much better at hedging against fluctuations in fuel prices when compared to their older rivals, Jacobson said.
"Hedging is very costly. Southwest has been doing it very efficiently for several years now but other companies, who have been operating on low profit margins for so long, have bet not to do it," he said.
The US government supported the airline sector, albeit at arms length, after the September 11 attacks because it believed the sector was vital to the United States, Jacobson said.
"But there are so many new airlines, it could decide to pull back," he warned. "It is a sign for the market that old companies may not last."
-------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED AIRLINES WARNS IT MAY HAVE TO SCRAP PENSIONS

Beleaguered US carrier United Airlines has warned that it may have to scrap employee pension funds in order to emerge from bankruptcy.
If the airline does terminate its four pension schemes it would be the largest pensions default by a US company ever, affecting 119,000 workers and retirees.
The warning was disclosed in bankruptcy court papers released yesterday (Thursday) and confirm unions and the US government's worst fears.
The airline, which will owe £2.24 BILLION (US$4.1bn) in pension contributions by 2008, has already said that it would halt payments to the fund to secure exit financing. Unions however have challenged the move in court in an attempt to force the airline into paying.

If the airline does scrap its pension plans the US government's Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp will be liable for £3.5bn (US$6.4bn) of the fund's £4.5bn (US$8.3bn) deficit, reports The Associated Press.

The age old cry of management "Our industry is in threat so you have to accept low pay"....

Meanwhile in the real world the Airling industry (certainly BA) are undergoing a recovery. As I posted massive first quater profits. Probably a big shareholder dividend. Well hard lines BA, you are having to use som of that money to give your workers a better payrise, scuse me if I dont shed a tear for the poor managers and shareholders.