BAA Strikes (BAA, NOT BRITSH AIRWAYS)

[jamief]

If the company are making a loss and they are, they surely should be able to make redundancies like many companies have been doing recently

Yes, companies can make redundancies.

However, the is a process to be followed with redundancy. And having participated in legal industrial action is not an appropriate reason for being made redundant.

I don't like people striking for this kind of reason, but unfortunately they are protected by law. Either change the law or accept it - there isn't a viable alternative.

 

[gjrc]

change the law. unions should not be allowed in privatised companies.

total disgrace

 

[Dj_Jestar]

change the law. unions should not be allowed in privatised companies.

total disgrace

Why not?!

 

[Tunney]

I don't understand why the guy who wears all the gold chains in the A-Team is striking at all. A 1.5% pay increase might not sound like a lot but he's got to remember that he's part of the Los Angeles underground now.

 

[Glaucus]

You ahve to remember that unions do not do what there members want.
Ours was calling on a strike due to a 1.5% pay rise. We told them where to stick it, or most of us anyway.

Modern unions do far more damage than good for their members. They have gone to far with standardised pay, protecting employees, far to much sick pay and the like. It makes it very hard to get rid of dead wood, is still possible but few try anything as they are scared of the unions.
I don;t get why managers are not sent on disciplinary courses. So they know exactly how to deal with the situations and do it by the book.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

I notice we dont have a thread about this upcoming issue.

That's because it's been discussed to death and most of us are bored with it.

Essentially the employees of BAA - a loss making private organisation that has turned no profit this quarter - beleive a potential 1.5% pay increase is simply not enough, and that despite the poor financial performance of an organisation which has suffered all manner of setbacks recently, they should be entitled to even more of a pay rise.

No. They should STFU, be thankful they still have jobs, and get back to work without any more fuss before BA ceases to exist.

Many, many people, in both the private and public sectors, have received no pay rise at all. BA staff are not special. They are a disgrace. Especially when their rates of pay are the highest of any airline any way.

 

[Glaucus]

No. They should STFU, be thankful they still have jobs, and get back to work without any more fuss before BA ceases to exist.

And they might well do, just because union is calling for it, does not mean the member are. we will have to wait for the ballot.

. Especially when their rates of pay are the highest of any airline any way.

This is BAA not BA

 

[jamief]

That's because it's been discussed to death and most of us are bored with it.



No. They should STFU, be thankful they still have jobs, and get back to work without any more fuss before BA ceases to exist.

Many, many people, in both the private and public sectors, have received no pay rise at all. BA staff are not special. They are a disgrace. Especially when their rates of pay are the highest of any airline any way.

You must've missed the fact that this about

BAA

and not

BA

 

[The Mad Rapper]

This is BAA not BA

Oops!

I've completely mis-read the post then. I withdraw all comments and send my apologies to the OP.

 

[The Mad Rapper]

You must've missed the fact that this about

BAA

and not

BA

Yes, thank you smart arse. See above

 

[Pudney]

No. They should STFU, be thankful they still have jobs, and get back to work without any more fuss before BA ceases to exist.

Many, many people, in both the private and public sectors, have received no pay rise at all. BA staff are not special. They are a disgrace. Especially when their rates of pay are the highest of any airline any way.

People should start getting suspended when they don't read threads and post things that have been repeatedly pointed out to be about the wrong company

 

[The Mad Rapper]

People should start getting suspended when they don't read threads and post things that have been repeatedly pointed out to be about the wrong company

I did read the thread, I just mis-read the BAA part, as I have clearly explained

 

[J1234]

+1

And someone please change the thread title from BAA to British Airports Authority before anyone mentions BA again!

British Airports Authority stopped existing years ago, it's just BAA Ltd and the 'BAA' doesn't (officially) stand for anything.

 

[gjrc]

Why not?!

because they should not be allowed to strike and hold the company to ransom. especially where there are shareholder concerns as well. why should the workforce be able to push a company into bankruptcy?

in any other industry if you don't like your pay / job / working conditions you leave and go somewhere else.

 

[Glaucus]

striking isn't the only thing they do. they do do a hell of a lot of negotiations over many many matters, as well as legal advice and the rest of it.

I would rather see a change in law and set up some sort of "court/tribunal" for lack of a better word, that is used after the ballot for industrial action. That followed guidelines to say if industrial action is reasonable or not.

in any other industry if you don't like your pay / job / working conditions you leave and go somewhere else.

Not in all other industries.

And it's not always possible to just get another job. Some industries have a monopoly and some of those industries are unique non-transferable skills.

 

[Pudney]

I did read the thread, I just mis-read the BAA part, as I have clearly explained

Yeah, but you clearly explained whilst I was writing my post so that doesn't count

 

[Dj_Jestar]

You ahve to remember that unions do not do what there members want.
Ours was calling on a strike due to a 1.5% pay rise. We told them where to stick it, or most of us anyway.

Modern unions do far more damage than good for their members. They have gone to far with standardised pay, protecting employees, far to much sick pay and the like. It makes it very hard to get rid of dead wood, is still possible but few try anything as they are scared of the unions.
I don;t get why managers are not sent on disciplinary courses. So they know exactly how to deal with the situations and do it by the book.

That is an illegal strike. Members must vote in favour of industrial action, by a majority, before any action can take place.

 

[Glaucus]

That is an illegal strike. Members must vote in favour of industrial action, by a majority

The strike never happened.
My point was just because the union is balloting, don't think for a minute that the employees always agree.

 

[Dj_Jestar]

The strike never happened.
My point was just because the union is balloting, don't think for a minute that the employees always agree.

Then they should not be voting for it, and thus the strike will not (legally) happen. I'm failing to see your point.

 

[Glaucus]

Then they should not be voting for it, and thus the strike will not (legally) happen. I'm failing to see your point.

people didn't vote for it and as such the strike never remotely happened, it never got past balloting.

My point is, the ballot has not come back for the BAA strike. People are saying the employees should get on with there job and stop moaning. They haven't been shown to be moaning yet and they may well just get on with there job.

It is the union who has called for the industrial action and until the ballot comes back, we do not know the employees feelings.