Poll: Do you support the BA Cabin Crew 12 day strike at Christmas?

[scorza]

Because many companies don't pay much extra for time away beyond expenses.

But you agree that generally people do get paid when they are away from home?

You'd presumably also agree that if you want people to work full time for you, but can only offer them 750 working hours a year that you're going to have to increase the hourly rate on offer so you can pay them a living wage?

 

[Dolph]

But you agree that generally people do get paid when they are away from home?

Generally, no they don't. They get paid for working while they are there, and for travelling, as well as hotel and meal expenses in the vast majority of cases. They don't get paid for 'being away from home'. The roles that require it regularly often have some form of compensation built in, but in the general case, people don't get extra just for being away.

You'd presumably also agree that if you want people to work full time for you, but can only offer them 750 working hours a year that you're going to have to increase the hourly rate on offer so you can pay them a living wage?

Hourly rate is irrelevant, what matters is the total compensation package for completing the job role, and whether it is suitably competitive to attract the quality of candidate that you desire (of course, this does cut both ways. You also need to ensure that existing staff are continuing to earn the wages you pay them with appropriate performance management).

 

[scorza]

Generally, no they don't. They get paid for working while they are there, and for travelling, as well as hotel and meal expenses in the vast majority of cases. They don't get paid for 'being away from home'. The roles that require it regularly often have some form of compensation built in, but in the general case, people don't get extra just for being away.

Which would be the case for cabin crew.

Hourly rate is irrelevant, what matters is the total compensation package for completing the job role, and whether it is suitably competitive to attract the quality of candidate that you desire (of course, this does cut both ways. You also need to ensure that existing staff are continuing to earn the wages you pay them with appropriate performance management).

Funny how it was relevant when it was all "OMG £16ph these people don't know they were born "

 

[JBuk]

Why would anyone work unpaid?

They wouldn't, they get paid for the hours worked, not for time away

I don't know anybody that gets paid for just for being away from home, most get benefits such as meal allowances and boarding but that's it

 

[robgmun]

Now that's the way to do it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1262754/Naked-Spanish-cabin-crew-model-wages.html

 

[Deleted member 66701]

If anyone wanted to know the outcome of the discussions between PCS and Hewlett Packard at ACAS last Thursday and Tuesday:-

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/commercial_...-suspended.cfm

Result

 

[scorza]

If anyone wanted to know the outcome of the discussions between PCS and Hewlett Packard at ACAS last Thursday and Tuesday:-

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/commercial_...-suspended.cfm

Result

Bad request?

 

[HangTime]

Nope and in some random drunken ill-thought-out answer state I will state that I never support strike action, sack the lot of them and hire people who want the job, end of story.
If nobody wants the job then equilibrium will either force out a pointless job or increase the rate of pay/benefits accordingly to fill the roles, job done.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Bad request?

Carp. Try this:-

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/commercial...ike-action-on-6th-and-7th-april-suspended.cfm

 

[Dolph]

Carp. Try this:-

http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/commercial...ike-action-on-6th-and-7th-april-suspended.cfm

So you won the long term right to represent people who may not want you to, and the an agreement that the company won't make people redundant even if it's necessary.

Is that a victory for workers, or just for PCS members...

 

[Deleted member 66701]

So you won the long term right to represent people who may not want you to

No, the members have the option to opt in or opt out. They don't have to be collectively bargained for if they don't want to and can carry on as they are now if they want to (why would they though when they've had a 5 year pay freeze?).

Is that a victory for workers, or just for PCS members...

Only PCS members will be given the option to opt in (this was the companies stipulation, not ours but we didn't object to it) and benefit from collective bargaining and the resulting pay increase etc.

the an agreement that the company won't make people redundant even if it's necessary

Making people CR in order to boost share holder profits is never necessary. A company who banked $8billion in profit this year has no reason to make people CR.

 

[Dolph]

No, the members have the option to opt in or opt out. They don't have to be collectively bargained for if they don't want to and can carry on as they are now if they want to (why would they though when they've had a 5 year pay freeze?).

Only PCS members will be given the option to opt in (this was the companies stipulation, not ours but we didn't object to it) and benefit from collective bargaining and the resulting pay increase etc.

Ah, so basically you are agreeing to bullying workers who don't pay union dues through threat of redundancy for non members and withholding of blackmailed pay rises...

And you wondered why the PCS didn't object?

At least we're clear

Making people CR in order to boost share holder profits is never necessary. A company who banked $8billion in profit this year has no reason to make people CR.

Surely that depends on (a) how they made the profits (b) whether the profits were balanced across all divisions and (c) what the actual profit margin was.

It's entirely possible for a successful company to have a department or division that is loss making, overstaffed and inefficient... Should the workers in other areas of the business be punished for that drag effect?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Ah, so basically you are agreeing to bullying workers who don't pay union dues through threat of redundancy for non members and withholding of blackmailed pay rises...

It's nothing of the sort. Non union members are perfectly able to carry on the way they have always done and negotiate with the company on an individual basis. There are some employees that don't buy in to the idea of a union and that's fine as far as we're concerned - it's up to them whether they join or not - it's totally thier choice.

And let's be clear - the union aren't threatening redundancies and neither are we the ones imposing pay freezes.

It's entirely possible for a successful company to have a department or division that is loss making, overstaffed and inefficient

There are a multitude of ways to increase efficiency in that regard, which is what the redundancy framework we have both signed upto defines - things like growing the business to fully utilise staff, moving under utilised staff into other areas, better performance management for under performing staff, better training for inexperienced staff etc. CR's should be the absolute final solution, not the first solution. A company with 300,000 staff and turnover for $40billion should never need to make CR's - unless it is poorly managed.

 

[RDM]

A company who banked $8billion in profit this year has no reason to make people CR.

Why not? What if the job role no longer exists and the individual doesn't want to take any other role available in the company?

 

[Deleted member 66701]

What if the job role no longer exists and the individual doesn't want to take any other role available in the company?

That's not compulsory redundancy then is it?

If the individual doesn't want to take another role they are offered that in effect becomes a voluntary redundancy situation or even a breach of contract situation by the employee.

 

[RDM]

That's not compulsory redundancy then is it?

If the individual doesn't want to take another role they are offered that in effect becomes a voluntary redundancy situation or even a breach of contract situation by the employee.

No, it is compulsary redundancy, I can assure you of that as that is pretty much what happened to me this time last year. The role was made redundant, there were no suitable roles to move in to, I was made redundant along with the role.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

there were no suitable roles to move in to

If you were given the option of moving into another role but you refused, then that's not compulsory redundancy - that's voluntary redundancy by proxy.

If your company called it CR then they made a mistake and you've grounds for an industrial tribunal claim.

 

[PapaLazaru]

I am currently trying to drink them out of business in the lounge at T5.

 

[Dolph]

It's nothing of the sort. Non union members are perfectly able to carry on the way they have always done and negotiate with the company on an individual basis. There are some employees that don't buy in to the idea of a union and that's fine as far as we're concerned - it's up to them whether they join or not - it's totally thier choice.

And let's be clear - the union aren't threatening redundancies and neither are we the ones imposing pay freezes.

Keep telling yourself that, you may even manage to convince yourself of it eventually.

There are a multitude of ways to increase efficiency in that regard, which is what the redundancy framework we have both signed upto defines - things like growing the business to fully utilise staff, moving under utilised staff into other areas, better performance management for under performing staff, better training for inexperienced staff etc. CR's should be the absolute final solution, not the first solution. A company with 300,000 staff and turnover for $40billion should never need to make CR's - unless it is poorly managed.

Or it has been poorly managed previously and is overstaffed.

Still, best not let reality get in the way eh?

If you were given the option of moving into another role but you refused, then that's not compulsory redundancy - that's voluntary redundancy by proxy.

If your company called it CR then they made a mistake and you've grounds for an industrial tribunal claim.

Only if they are mapped or pooled due to similarity of current role. If they simply choose not to apply for alternative positions, whatever the reason for the choice, then they are terminated under CR along with the role.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

Hmm, you're heading down the path of personal attacks with:-

Keep telling yourself that, you may even manage to convince yourself of it eventually.

and

Still, best not let reality get in the way eh?

It's obviously proving difficult to have a reasoned and sensible discussion with you so I will politely bow out of this exchange - thank you for your contributions up until this point.