If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
How many passengers were going to stay in hotels, spend money at tourist sights etc? Or don't those jobs matter?
The impact of those tourists not reaching their hotels is not going to cost any jobs anywhere. Not unless this carries on for 3 months at least.
Gate Gourmet wouldn't give a toss if the entire Virgin Atlantic workforce went on strike, for instance- seeing as it wouldn't affect its business one bit.
Ditto practically every other company in Britain.
That is exactly why the BA strike is significant and counts.
What about the majority of non-striking BA staff? A dip in BA’s profits means a lower profit share bonus for all of them. So the lazy workers on strike have effectively robbed their fellow staff of a few quid. Funny how the lazy strikers can show solidarity with their friends at another company but not with their fellow workers at BA. And you call it solidarity. :rolleyes:
Fair point, I can see why they think their illegal strike will achieve something...But given the other factors pointed out by people in this thread they remain in the wrong.
Seems like most objections to this strike come from two sources -
1) It costs money. (wah!)
2) It's upset customers.
I have no sympathy with the first one, money should serve us, not the other way round. it's only a delusion anyway.
The second one becomes a little clearer when you realise that the people going to foreign climes only get any time off at all because of actions like this. It's harsh for a holidaymaker but they wouldn't be going anywhere or have the money to do so in most cases if this kind of thing wasn't done every so often.
Complete bollocks. This strike will have absolutely no influence on people’s holiday entitlements. Nor will this thing ‘every so often’ change anybody’s wage. How will a few lazy BA staff going out on strike mean checkout staff at Tesco get a few more days holiday or a bit better pay?
And lets remember that when this sort of thing happened more as in the 1970’s Britain was the ‘sick man of Europe’ with one of the worst economies in Western Europe. Of course through the 80’s and 90’s things like this became increasingly rare and Britain became one of the most successful economies of Europe…
Reading comprehension - nil points.
How about reading what I wrote and coming back to me when the red mist has cleared.
And lets remember that at the start of the last century it was 16 hours a day slavery for most folk. Get a fucking grip would you? or a history book.
The balance between letting the bossses shaft everyone and letting the unions shaft everyone is hard to get right. Things like this keep it balanced.
You obviously missed the point. Not like you at all? :rolleyes:
For your benefit I'll quote your original post as you seem to have lost the plot a bit. Again not like you is it?
So from that you seem to be suggesting that these holidaymakers wouldn’t be able to get a holiday if it wasn’t for people going on illegal strikes every now and then? You also seem to be saying that they wouldn’t have the money to go on holiday if it weren’t for such strikes. And by ‘every so often’ you seem to think that we need these stunts every now and then to maintain/improve pay and holiday entitlement?
Which makes my reading comprehension just fine, proof that I’ve read your post, my comments regarding Tesco accurate and your reply completely irrelevant.
Remind me again, why were the Gate Gourmet staff refusing to work?
Not at all. if you check you will find i am proabaly the most consistent in my views of all who post here.
Congratulations on your second reading you got there. Are you seriously suggesting that modern employment law would be as it is without strikes etc during the last 120 years? Just checking, because you don't seem that dim.
Again, do you really think that the majority of those poor stranded sods would be going anywhere or have any spare cash at all if not for efforts like those of the BA staff over the last century or so?
"Stunts" good word. how about we phrase it a different way. "BA loses millions through poor staff handling by management." Or....."lousy govenment fails to protect workers rights" etc etc.
I am sorry, I assumed you had reading difficulties. Obviously it's your general thought processes that are at fault.
I don’t dispute that but that’s not justification for the BA strike. You seem to think that it is.
Modern employment law exists – more strikes aren’t really going to significantly alter employment law. Unions fought and won their battle a long time ago and that was a good thing. But that’s one of the reasons why trade unions have become so irrelevant. I don’t see how lazy BA staff going on strike will make any difference to employment laws, you don't seem dim enough to think that it will.
No seriously.
Their company was in trouble, there was a financial plan in place which would keep jobs. With the increased number of flights in the summer - therefore increased meals - Gate Gourmet employed cheap labour. Cheap labour means help to company financial position.
My understanding is that the staff took offence at the hiring of these people during tight finance and so refused to work.
The company sacked them for breach of contract.
I actually have sympathy with them in the manner of their sacking, but not with their approach.
That still does not justify what the BA staff did. I heard on handler on Radio 5 this evening suggesting that he did it to show BA managers that they would accept the same treatment - even though it wasn't on the cards.
So, please why did BA staff strike?
Just making the point that things aren't automatically wrong just because they are illegal.
It'll only keep existing if this sort of thing keeps happening though. As you yourself say so many times if you don't fight for your rights you will lose them. This one strike won't tip the balance that much either way, but it does serve as a reminder that "bosses" can't just do what they lke.
You can bet it won't be the shareholders profits or the directors salaries.
Jesus, have a look around you. Permanent staff being sacked in favour of short contracts and agency staff, massive levels of sickness, 500 people sacked with 5 minutes notice, my employer opting out of NJC pay scales even though the director has awarded himself massive pay rises (and this is a large social care charity!) etc etc. You still think the unions are irrelevant?
Read MoK's post regarding what was happening with staff at gate gourmet. I don't know anything about your employer so can't comment.
Unions are irrelevant in that their overall membership is still in decline. Their influence has diminished and today’s Labour government couldn’t really care less what the unions think. Apart from a few industries especially in the public sector the unions have little clout. Even where they supposedly have recognition rights their powerless..Example being Tesco, I know people who work there and are members of Usdaw which Tesco apparently recognise. Tesco staff who joined after a certain date now don't get premium payments on Sundays/Bank Holidays - most other supermarkets pay time and a half.
Anyway now BA staff have had their nice day off in the middle of August they're going back to work it seems. Wonder what reason they'll make up for a day off next August.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/ba/story/0,13772,1548478,00.html
Why have they declined? What happened? What political and social events happened? In what context, supported by which idealogies? To assert that they are irrelevant and that there are no employment rights to be won anymore merely demonstrates either a pig-headed blindness on your part or an "I'm alright Jack, fuck the rest of you" attitude. Which is it?