Home Politics & Debate
At The Mix, we want to make our services as helpful as we can. To do this, we’d love to ask you a few questions about you, your visit to The Mix and its impact. It should take only about 5-10 minutes to complete. Take this survey and get a chance at winning a £200 Amazon voucher​.
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Sign up here

Skiving BA strike ringleader sacked

MixBotMixBot Posts: 8,656 Automated Account
And good riddance too.

Good on BA for punishing this man.
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
«13

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    so no more annual strikes in the summer?? good stuff.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Coming soon -

    Sacked BA worker gets squillions in damages for wrongful dismissal. :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit, for all your socialist pretensions, you're really a Liberal. I think its disgraceful that he's been sacked for standing up for workers rights. Maybe when it happens to you one day you'll change your mind.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    He wasn't standing up for workers rights, he was skiving off on a hot summer's day, shafting tens of thousands of people. Excuse me whilst I don't have any sympathy with the selfish, skiving little twat.

    The whole Gate Gourmet thing was a total disgrace. The Gate Gourmet staff were justified but misguided in their striking- their union lied to them, and it played right into GG's agenda anyway. But the BA staff do not have a single justification for their despicable actions, and to claim otherwise is ludicrous.

    Wildcat strikers should have the book thrown at them. I don't give a fig about BA's profits, but I do give a fog about tens of thousands of people being screwed over for no good reason, and with no good warning.

    Wildcat strikers are vermin who deserve to be punished. Shame he wasn't made liable for all the losses, including the losses of the man who missed his daughter's wedding because of the shameful wildcat action.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Good on BA for punishing this man.

    turkey.JPG

    ballot%20box%204.jpg

    R1117.jpg
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    He wasn't standing up for workers rights, he was skiving off on a hot summer's day, shafting tens of thousands of people. Excuse me whilst I don't have any sympathy with the selfish, skiving little twat.

    The whole Gate Gourmet thing was a total disgrace. The Gate Gourmet staff were justified but misguided in their striking- their union lied to them, and it played right into GG's agenda anyway. But the BA staff do not have a single justification for their despicable actions, and to claim otherwise is ludicrous.

    Wildcat strikers should have the book thrown at them. I don't give a fig about BA's profits, but I do give a fog about tens of thousands of people being screwed over for no good reason, and with no good warning.

    Wildcat strikers are vermin who deserve to be punished. Shame he wasn't made liable for all the losses, including the losses of the man who missed his daughter's wedding because of the shameful wildcat action.


    you really have a hatred for working class people don't you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yes, blaggy I do. Worst thing that ever happened was abolishing feudalism.

    HANG THE CUNTS!!!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    turkey.JPG

    ballot%20box%204.jpg

    R1117.jpg

    Chicken vote santa? I dont understand.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Yes, blaggy I do. Worst thing that ever happened was abolishing feudalism.

    HANG THE CUNTS!!!

    judging by your vitriol everytime the subject of workers standing up for their rights comes up, I'd say that actually, you do really think this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    bongbudda wrote:
    Chicken vote santa? I dont understand.

    Its like turkeys voting for Xmas
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They can stand up for their rights, sure. When workers are striking to protect their salaries, or to protect workers who have been screwed by the same company, then I have little complaint.

    Wildcat strikes are a disgrace.
    Striking for hypothetical points-scoring is a scandal.
    "Solidarity" is a load of nonsense.

    What connection did the BA staff have to Gate Gourmet? None.
    What connection did BA have to Gate Gourmet? None.

    Why the fuck were BA staff on wildcat strike then? They didn't go on strike when First bus drivers rightly did, or when the firemen rightly did. Funny that. If they went on strike every time someone else was on strike, they'd never be at work.

    I'm sure the fact it was the summer holidays had nothing to do with it at all, oh no.

    I wonder if the scum who organised that wildcat strike ever did get round to apologising to the man who was forced to miss his daughter's wedding because of their shameful behaviour? I doubt it, don't you?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Its like turkeys voting for Xmas

    Oh, ok, far too clever for me.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    They can stand up for their rights, sure. When workers are striking to protect their salaries, or to protect workers who have been screwed by the same company, then I have little complaint.

    Wildcat strikes are a disgrace.
    Striking for hypothetical points-scoring is a scandal.
    "Solidarity" is a load of nonsense.

    What connection did the BA staff have to Gate Gourmet? None.
    What connection did BA have to Gate Gourmet? None.

    Why the fuck were BA staff on wildcat strike then? They didn't go on strike when First bus drivers rightly did, or when the firemen rightly did. Funny that. If they went on strike every time someone else was on strike, they'd never be at work.

    I'm sure the fact it was the summer holidays had nothing to do with it at all, oh no.

    I wonder if the scum who organised that wildcat strike ever did get round to apologising to the man who was forced to miss his daughter's wedding because of their shameful behaviour? I doubt it, don't you?

    I rest my case Kermit.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What case would that be?

    That I don't like people who screw other people over for no good reason? Company or employee, the same ethics apply. And the trade union should have been made liable for every penny any BA customer lost as a result of the action.

    Do you think its OK to drop everything, leave people stranded tens of thousands of miles from home, and expect to get away with it? Even if they'd balloted and given warning I would have had sympathy with the man who got sacked, but they just dropped everyone in it for purely selfish gain.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good news. He broke the law and organising an illegal strike is sufficient grounds for dismissal. Tbh, he like the union deserve to be sued for everything they’ve got for the inconvenience and disruption they caused for thousands of passengers and damage they unjustifiably inflicted on their employer. Although BA should sack every single employee that illegally striked. While it would in the short term create vast problems; staff shortages, etc it would stop this kind of thing happening every summer and prevent employees from consistently holding their employer to ransom.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    What case would that be?

    That I don't like people who screw other people over for no good reason? Company or employee, the same ethics apply. And the trade union should have been made liable for every penny any BA customer lost as a result of the action.

    Do you think its OK to drop everything, leave people stranded tens of thousands of miles from home, and expect to get away with it? Even if they'd balloted and given warning I would have had sympathy with the man who got sacked, but they just dropped everyone in it for purely selfish gain.

    You don't get it obviously. I rest my case.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good news. He broke the law and organising an illegal strike is sufficient grounds for dismissal. Tbh, he like the union deserve to be sued for everything they’ve got for the inconvenience and disruption they caused for thousands of passengers and damage they unjustifiably inflicted on their employer. Although BA should sack every single employee that illegally striked. While it would in the short term create vast problems; staff shortages, etc it would stop this kind of thing happening every summer and prevent employees from consistently holding their employer to ransom.

    how do you think employees got the few rights we have now? by smiling sweetly? :rolleyes:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    What connection did the BA staff have to Gate Gourmet? None.
    What connection did BA have to Gate Gourmet? None.

    actually BA were gate gourmets main customers, as BA outsourced to them, and well the strikers by doing the strike and keeping BA from operating, were doing a boycott of GG
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    klintock wrote:
    Coming soon -

    Sacked BA worker gets squillions in damages for wrongful dismissal. :rolleyes:

    Yeah... you can bet he'll sue.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If employers could get away with paying us 5 pence an hour and giving us no holiday leave, they would.

    As Blagsta has said, whichever rights, benefits and perks we workers have are thanks to action or threat of action by the workforce as a pressure group.

    Seeing as the workers of GateGourmet themselves had little or no power of their own it is only right that the workers of BA, a company that like it or not can have massive influence over GateGourmet, should spring to help.

    I can't really believe that some of you will see nothing wrong with greedy subhuman scumbags such as the owners of GateGourmet treating employees like cattle and trying to dispose of as many of them as possible in order to employ slave-wage temps and cream ever more profit.

    Let's hope none of you ever find yourselves in that position. In the meantime some of you need perhaps to look up the meaning of the word 'solidarity'. Because, believe it or not, there are many people out there who like their jobs, are responsible, but also want to make sure other people's jobs are safe and they're not messed with. Even if they don't personally know any of those people.

    Almost unheard-of concept of selflessness, I know...

    But frankly, next time, say, Tube employees threaten to strike on a safety-related issue (because believe it or not, in the immense majority of cases Tube workers strike they do it for OUR safety and nothing else) I'm going to write to them and say ''Don't bother mate- most people think you just want the day off so let the trains run unsafely and eventually crash and kill three dozen commuters. Perhaps that will open a few eyes''.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    If employers could get away with paying us 5 pence an hour and giving us no holiday leave, they would.

    No they wouldn't.

    Least of all because no money = no customers = no profit.
    Seeing as the workers of GateGourmet themselves had little or no power of their own

    They did. They went on strike, causing huge problems for on-board catering.
    it is only right that the workers of BA, a company that like it or not can have massive influence over GateGourmet, should spring to help.

    :lol:
    I can't really believe that some of you will see nothing wrong with greedy subhuman scumbags such as the owners of GateGourmet treating employees like cattle and trying to dispose of as many of them as possible in order to employ slave-wage temps and cream ever more profit.

    careful you don't fall foul of libel there.

    GG was going bust, and was hopelessly in debt. A far cry from the "creaming of profit" the lying trade union tried to claim.

    Workers were not "replaced", they were dismissed for going on wildcat strike. The hire of seasonal staff for the peak season was, apparently, common practice- even the trade union admitted that much, in amongst their diet of lies and fabrications.

    And yeah, the next time tube drivers go on strike complaining about "privatisation", they should be invited to find new jobs.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    No they wouldn't.

    Least of all because no money = no customers = no profit.
    Well it has been that way throughout the history of employment, up until workers finally started to get some rights and better wages in the 20th century.

    Not everybody works in factories. The rich naturally look after their own, and also after middle class folk. We're not talking white collar workers here.

    They did. They went on strike, causing huge problems for on-board catering.
    There were such severe problems for the company that they sacked the lot of them.

    Yep, I can see what dire straits the company was really in...


    :lol:
    Er... Gate Gourmet itself has said so. They actually blamed BA for the affair, saying that BA has always put too much pressure on Gate Gourmet to lower its prices and that eventually that caused the company to run into trouble and blah blah...


    careful you don't fall foul of libel there.

    GG was going bust, and was hopelessly in debt. A far cry from the "creaming of profit" the lying trade union tried to claim.
    Never mind that the company that owns Gate Gourmet, Texas Pacific, is massively wealthy eh...
    Workers were not "replaced", they were dismissed for going on wildcat strike. The hire of seasonal staff for the peak season was, apparently, common practice- even the trade union admitted that much, in amongst their diet of lies and fabrications.
    If you really believe that's all there was to it you're hopelessly naive... or simply willing to believe whichever corporate greed-driven fairy tales are thrown at you.
    And yeah, the next time tube drivers go on strike complaining about "privatisation", they should be invited to find new jobs.
    So you do hate ordinary workers and don't give a toss about the consumer either then.

    Nice to see you have such contempt for people who are sticking up for you.


    Read this article carefully Kermit
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    If employers could get away with paying us 5 pence an hour and giving us no holiday leave, they would.

    As Blagsta has said, whichever rights, benefits and perks we workers have are thanks to action or threat of action by the workforce as a pressure group.

    Really? I suggest you look at the history of some quaker companies; Cadbury's perhaps being the best example. Also what about the John Lewis partnership? John Lewis gave the company to the staff and it's an employer...There are plenty of other big companies with a reputation for treating their staff well. And while industrial action has secured many rights, benefits and perks we have it hasn't got them all and it's a complete lie to suggest that. Those actions have also produced a framework in which we have greater protections; workers cannot be sacked for no reason, etc. The role of unions is very limited now compared to what it was. And unions have had such a negative impact, just look at British Leyland/Rover which was destroyed due to the greediness of unions.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    So you do hate ordinary workers and don't give a toss about the consumer either then.

    Yep, that's exactly what I said. Hang the fuckers. :rolleyes:

    Having trouble understanding English today? Your literacy is normally so much better.
    Nice to see you have such contempt for people who are sticking up for you.

    How are they, exactly?

    By making people miss their daughter's weddings? I'm sure the victims will look back and go "ah, never mind I missed the most important day of my daughter's life, at least they were sticking up for me by skiving off on a hot summer's day!"

    More tosh by everyone's second-favourite cretin (behind Scargill) written in a sanctimonious and rather poor newspaper.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Really? I suggest you look at the history of some quaker companies; Cadbury's perhaps being the best example. Also what about the John Lewis partnership? John Lewis gave the company to the staff and it's an employer...There are plenty of other big companies with a reputation for treating their staff well. And while industrial action has secured many rights, benefits and perks we have it hasn't got them all and it's a complete lie to suggest that. Those actions have also produced a framework in which we have greater protections; workers cannot be sacked for no reason, etc. The role of unions is very limited now compared to what it was. And unions have had such a negative impact, just look at British Leyland/Rover which was destroyed due to the greediness of unions.
    Unfortunately Disillusioned, for every company like John Lewis there are countless more that are just interested in making as much profit as possible even if it means cutting a raw deal for its floor workers.

    Companies like John Lewis are, unfortunately, a very very small minority.

    And incidentally it was pisspoor management not "union greed" that sends companies like Rover under.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Kermit wrote:
    Yep, that's exactly what I said. Hang the fuckers. :rolleyes:

    Having trouble understanding English today? Your literacy is normally so much better.
    Seeing as you are objecting to workers striking for your safety AND NOTHING ELSE (speaking about London Underground anyway) I can only assume you simply despise them.

    What other explanation could there be? :confused:


    By making people miss their daughter's weddings? I'm sure the victims will look back and go "ah, never mind I missed the most important day of my daughter's life, at least they were sticking up for me by skiving off on a hot summer's day!"
    I reckon if you claim the strikers just wanted a day off in the sun 10,000 times more, it will magically become true.

    It's what you want to believe anyway, seemly due to your appalling prejudice and dislike of unions and strike action regardless of the circumstances...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    And incidentally it was pisspoor management not "union greed" that sends companies like Rover under.

    Rubbish.

    Go and look at British Leyland in the 1970s. Rover went under because of what happened then, not now.

    Although not selling to Honda was the worst decision a board of directors has ever made.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Really? I suggest you look at the history of some quaker companies; Cadbury's perhaps being the best example. Also what about the John Lewis partnership? John Lewis gave the company to the staff and it's an employer...There are plenty of other big companies with a reputation for treating their staff well. And while industrial action has secured many rights, benefits and perks we have it hasn't got them all and it's a complete lie to suggest that. Those actions have also produced a framework in which we have greater protections; workers cannot be sacked for no reason, etc. The role of unions is very limited now compared to what it was. And unions have had such a negative impact, just look at British Leyland/Rover which was destroyed due to the greediness of unions.

    So you think that bosses should hold employees to ransom. What a crock of shite
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    So you think that bosses should hold employees to ransom. What a crock of shite

    That's exactly what he said :rolleyes:

    It isn't as black-and-white as "if you disagree with a strike you hate poor people!!11one1!eleven!".

    Yes, workers should have the right to maintain their working conditions, and protect fellow employees from managerial harrassment.

    But with that right comes responsibilities, to not strike illegally, and to not strike for matters which have nothing to do with you or your company.

    If you strike against "privatisation" then you should be severely reprimanded. You are not protecting rights, you are holding a democratically elected Government to ransom because you don't like a decision it has made.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    If you strike against "privatisation" then you should be severely reprimanded. You are not protecting rights, you are holding a democratically elected Government to ransom because you don't like a decision it has made.

    :lol:

    We had a vote and you lost. Now we are going to take away your livelihood but because we had a vote (and you lost) you have to take it with a smile. :eek2:
Sign In or Register to comment.