Of Course Not!
Yes, I believe in entitlment
There's nothing like a bit of cat-out-of-the-bag manipulation to enhance the trust needed in crucial negotiations...Originally Posted by JPreston
Another git(e) exposedAh yes, France. Home to pro-unionists, and 'spiritual and tax' home to the non-domiciled tory Lord, donor and owner of the very same right-wing bum-rag that has most eagerly smeared BA crewmembers.
OK, so BA planned the whole thing? And the union, they just what? Where forced to go along with having a 12 day strike over Christmas?
Pull the other one, BA might have pulled a fast one by giving them a list which they knew would be invalidated in 2 days, but the 12 days of Christmas, that was the unions doing..I'm not sure if your implying that I was in any way lucky to have a life of cosset? But those who know me here can tell you that's not quite true! But anyway.The Union behaved in the manner for which it exists and that is to support the interests of its membership. Their timing was off, not their principles and, although unpopular with cossetted, smug, I'm-alright-Jack types, it illustrates that if you are to stop management walking all over you, a Union is still necessary. A threat to withhold pay has been met with a threat to withdraw labour and talking, not dictat, is the way to resolve the 'problem'.
Union stuff really gets your goat doesn't it? Why don't you stay home and spend your wad here? You're unpatriotic.
The interests of its members? How on earth do you help the members by striking, for 12 days, at Christmas?
That is in no way the interests of its members, however it is in the interest of a someone who has political ambition and wanting to show their power.
I'm in no way opposed to the notion of having a union that helps prevent exploitation, it is just that I think that some people ignore the downsides too much. The union is run by people who are of course fallible, the problem is that too many of these think they have a better idea than the management of how they should work. Whilst they are plenty of management whom are incompetent, they have at least worked their way up (normally) proving their ability.
So throughout history there are plenty of people who have shown their effect on the industry, it amazes me that some people think Mr Scargill wasn't actually responsible for greatly hastening the decline of UK mining. When you apply basic game theory with the great benefit of hindsight it really is apparent that he was not thinking on a global scale, refused to acknowledge certain trends, and attempted to force the management to go his way.
It is that which forces me to not like insurance. One of the reason I like living in the UK is the protection offered to employees by law. All I need is simple insurance (which i think cost me about £70 per annum for a very good level of coverage, by the nature of my work environment, I think it can be as low as £15).
The same is true for someone who is a teacher, or even a fast food worker. Now given that I think teachers are paid too little to begin with, the notion that they should give up so much money for an organisation that has its own agenda and offers little extra protection than that afforded by the courts, for a lot less of a cost.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
So you don't agree that choosing to forcing through contractual changes that were extremely likely to prompt strike action in mid-November was cynical. OK then what was it, stupidity?
In other words; when a company turns a profit it is because management are talented and rightly rewarded by huge bonuses, but when a company runs at a loss it is because of unions/greedy workers/hippies/feminists. And as an industry in the 21st century, air travel is no more relevant useful or desirable than the practice of digging up the remnants of prehistoric vegetation and burning it, and it will be destroyed not by it's reliance on fossil fuel or the MASSIVE government subsidies it receives at every stage but by the moderate wage demands of the women pushing the trolleys?
The management of BA are hugely incompetent, and by taking their entrenched position and refusing to negotiate they brought this strike onto themselves. You'd have presumably voted against strike action if you had been affected, in which case you would have taken an extremely minority view among your colleagues. Perhaps you, as a total outsider to both the company and the industry, know something that BA's own crew are missing out on in their thousands but from a purely rational perspective it does look more likely that your opinions are wrong, doesn't it?
They could have easily striked in less damaging ways, are you saying it demands 12 days?
This is the thing, all the staff who where been interviewed gave the impression that they had voted to strike, there is after all striking by say leaving the ticket barriers open (ok not applicable to airline, but its the best example I can think of) and there is striking by taking 12 days off at christmas, a time where people traditionally go home to their families.
Please read what I posted.In other words; when a company turns a profit it is because management are talented and rightly rewarded by huge bonuses, but when a company runs at a loss it is because of unions/greedy workers/hippies/feminists. And as an industry in the 21st century, air travel is no more relevant useful or desirable than the practice of digging up the remnants of prehistoric vegetation and burning it, and it will be destroyed not by it's reliance on fossil fuel or the MASSIVE government subsidies it receives at every stage but by the moderate wage demands of the women pushing the trolleys?
That is in no way what I was saying (and also very wrong, check out the corr between say BA and the FTSE/euro50/DJX). Try again.No, this is not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is their jobs, as they knew them a year ago are gone. They've lost them. End of, they aren't coming back.The management of BA are hugely incompetent, and by taking their entrenched position and refusing to negotiate they brought this strike onto themselves. You'd have presumably voted against strike action if you had been affected, in which case you would have taken an extremely minority view among your colleagues. Perhaps you, as a total outsider to both the company and the industry, know something that BA's own crew are missing out on in their thousands but from a purely rational perspective it does look more likely that your opinions are wrong, doesn't it?
Lack of business class passengers and operational costs mean their old business model is no longer applicable. What is now having to happen is a phoenix style scenario, where by an in many ways completely new firm has to be born. If the staff want their old jobs, its not going to happen.
If they want to strike about it, well lets just have a look at the mining industry, or the automotive industry? Or perhaps the Midlands in general. Worked out well for them didn't it.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Certainly not. I'm glad though that you are not similarly affronted by the implication of being 'smug' and an 'I'm-alright-Jack type'.
I did say I thought their timing was off.
Which is why talking, not grandstanding and autocracy, is necessary.
I think you give too much credit to cabin crew, most of whom will know little more about the size and structure of marginal operating costs that we do. What they do know about is the impact on their pay packet and working conditions and, not surprisingly, aren't happy about changes.
But unions have a track record of not wanting any changes to pay or conditions if it adversely affects their staff, no matter that they might be utterly necessary. Print unions have objected to changing technology because it would result in job losses, and never mind that the alternative would be for the company to go broke as more efficient competitors took market share old the fossilised companies couldn't compete. Scargill took the same stance, no job losses whole there's a single piece of coal in a pit, no matter how uneconomic getting it might be. Postal unions have much the same attitude if technology means job losses.
Nobody likes staff numbers being cut back, especially if you are one of the ones getting cut. And nobody like their pay going down either. And we can't blame the staff for not wanting to see their pay, standard of living or working conditions change for the worse, but when there's been fundamental and structural changes to a market, like air travel, companies are sometimes faced with a binary choice - adapt or die. The ostrich philosophy of business management exhibited by some unions. like the NUM, will simply make things worse and hasten what may well already be inevitable. Given the apparent writing on the wall from both the climate lobby and the changes in fuel prices, don't make the assumption that because we've enjoyed plentiful and relatively cheap air travel for a few decades that we always will enjoy it. We managed without until a few decades ago, and it's not beyond possibility we'll have to do so again before too much longer.
No amount of union intransigence is going to hold back structural changes with any more success than old tales suggest Canute had with the tide.
But what could happen is that if they get too obstructive, we'll end up with other airlines, often foreign-owned, capitalising, taking passengers away and BA ends up being sold off in a firesale of just going broke. Look what happened to the car industry in the UK, or to shipbuilding, for lessons in what union obstinacy can lead to.
BA might be big, but NO company (except banks and we ought to do something about that) is too big to fail, and the bigger they are, the harder they fall. Ask British Leyland's ex-staff.
Would you work for nothing to keep your Company buoyant Saracen? Nor would I, and I'd much prefer agreement to imposition. It also seems unreasonable to refer to 'union intransigence' when there are at least 2 sides to any dispute.
As I work for myself, the question hardly arises. I sink or swim on my own, and I walk away if I can't agree a rate. I also walk away if the other side seeks to impose conditions I won't agree to. More than once, I've terminated a contract rather than agree to changed terms .... for instance, when they expect me to "indemnify" them against virtually unlimited losses. But the difference is, I don't expect to keep the job if I won't agree to their terms and we can't agree on a compromise. It's simply game over.
It is also not unreasonable to refer to unions as intransigent when that's what they are, and in the context in which I said it, there certainly have been occasions when that is precisely what they have been, with Scargill being a prime example. But I said union intransigence isn't going to hold in the face of structural change. One example was the fight against computerised printing. Companies had a choice - modernise or end up driven out of business. But as modernising meant unions lost members jobs, they fought it tooth and nail, as if they didn't realise that the choice was between fewer jobs in the company or no jobs at all. If they're facing market conditions that are changing due to entirely external factors, or facing highly efficient import competition, then going on with the status quo simply won't work.
I did the audit at one company in the 80s, and knew the finance director and MD quite well. They knew the pressures they faced from competition and simply couldn't sell product at the prices they had been selling at, because they were being significantly undercut and buyers were buying elsewhere. In order to keep customers, they were selling at a loss and that can't go on for very long. The union would not accept the notion of job cuts but it was the only way to get costs down. If costs didn't come down, the company would go bust.
It's not as if management have any choice in that. It gets to a point where the company knows it can't pay bills and if directors keep trading knowing that, they commit a criminal offence. They have to go to receivership or some other form of administration, and that's even assuming that whoever controls what money the company has has let it go that far. No company can trade at a loss indefinitely, yet the union decided that they would strike rather than accept job losses. Any job losses. Period.
Guess what happened? The major shareholders, when it reached the point where there was an impasse, simply closed up shop, sold off the equipment and premises and retired. And ALL the staff lost their jobs. Why? because the stupid union were intransigent to the point of blindness.
So how is it "unreasonable" to refer to intransigence in a situation like that? They were intransigent, much like Scargill was, and with similar result. The ONLY way that company could survive was a radical overhaul, because the factors causing pressure were from outside competition and the management had no control whatever over that, and the unions simply wouldn't hear of change if it involved job losses. There are always two sides to an argument, eh? The union side was simply "no job losses", period. But they stood as much chance of success with that as, like I said, Canute stood with the tide.
It's not unreasonable to say it. It's simply what sometimes happened.
Oh, don't get me wrong I realise that intransigence can be irresponsible which is why neither side could benefit from holding that position. Jobs could be lost and not just employee jobs. I don't think this should mean people have to sell out on their principles. You have said that when you can't agree a rate, you walk away, you withdraw your labour. Unions realise the seriousness of withdrawing labour but sometimes it is necessary to say "let's talk" with a firmer voice.
There cannot be a person in the Country who isn't aware of the economic difficulty, but the pain of sorting it out has to be shared by all (except bankers, who should be paid huge bonuses from taxpayer's money to sort out the mess bankers created
There's a difference between me walking away and a union (or union member) "withdrawing their labour" though.Oh, don't get me wrong I realise that intransigence can be irresponsible which is why neither side could benefit from holding that position. Jobs could be lost and not just employee jobs. I don't think this should mean people have to sell out on their principles. You have said that when you can't agree a rate, you walk away, you withdraw your labour. Unions realise the seriousness of withdrawing labour but sometimes it is necessary to say "let's talk" with a firmer voice.
There cannot be a person in the Country who isn't aware of the economic difficulty, but the pain of sorting it out has to be shared by all (except bankers, who should be paid huge bonuses from taxpayer's money to sort out the mess bankers created
When I "walk away", I mean walk away. I don't mean hold the company to ransom. When I walk away, it's because we have reached a point where it's clear there is going to be no settled position, and that negotiation already has failed. It's not a negotiating ploy, it's "good luck, but goodbye".
For instance, one company I was doing some contract work for (on call) decided to replace existing contracts with new ones. Part of the new contract was a condition that said if they received an email from me that contained any sort of virus, I would fully indemnify them for the cost of removal, including any professional services that were required. However, they would not indemnify me in a similar manner if I received any viruses in an email from them. As I'm aware they'd just had more than 30 different infections removed from a couple of their servers, that struck me as a bit rich. Also, the contract required submission of various documents by email. I would have preferred to print and use mail, but they wanted e-submissions, and wanted me to pay for any and all legal, accounting or technical costs they incurred which, in a severe case had the potential for costing me my home. That is not the kind of risk I'm prepared to take, and certainly not at the standard rates the job entailed. They said their "legal department wrote it and it's too expensive to change it, it's that or nothing." So it was nothing.
I don't dispute that sometimes it's necessary to up the ante. But sometimes, unions are indeed intransigent, or even belligerent. And, as with Scargill, it's not always just about a negotiating tactic, but about their political philosophy, and I mean that of the union or leaders, not necessarily of the members.
And I would point out that when I said "intransigence" I was referring to "structural change" in the industry. If, and I stress IF their is no alternative to either cutting staff, or cutting pay, or perhaps even both, that will see the company operating at a profit, then the unions can talk as firm as they like, but for the reasons I outlined earlier, the company can't give in to what they want.
Unions have a role to play, and they're there to protect their members, in terms of jobs, pay and conditions. I understand that. But sometimes, there is simply no strategy that will achieve hat, and if when that happens, unions don't wake up and smell the coffee (and that certainly has happened on occasions, including the company I mentioned earlier) then it can be that union intransigence is precisely what kills any chance of keeping the company afloat.
No worker wants to take a cut in pay. I certainly don't, but on occasions, I have had to. But I wonder how many workers would prefer to see ALL the workforce out of a job rather than just some, or how many would rather be out of a job entirely, rather than take a pay cut? If they were prepared to lose the job, it implies they think they can get another one, in which case they can make the decision I made and "walk away". Quit. Resign. But in BA's case, they don't, do they?
So please, don't equate me "walking away" with a union "withdrawing Labour". Me walking away is acknowledging that a gulf that can't be crossed exists and that an agreement is not going to be reached. If that was what the union are doing, the workforce would have quit en masse. No, what they're doing is exerting pressure to get their way. Maybe they're justified, maybe not. None of us are privy to the details of the negotiating positions, and the union almost certainly aren't privy to the details of BA's cost structure, or margins. Maybe, just maybe, the management can't agree to the unions demands because they;ll be out of business if they do. And if so, union intransigence is going to make matters worse. They could do what the union in that company I audited did, or pretty much what unions did to Leyland or the mining industry.
But as we don't have the details of either the unions position or that of BA management, we really don't know how much leeway BA have for agreeing, or where the disaster point really is. Maybe management could agree to the demands and are using this as a negotiating stance and playing hardball, and maybe the union are. Maybe both. We just don't know.
But it's certainly not unreasonable to say that union intransigence in the face of structural change is going to be productive, because if (repeat IF) BA are between the rock and a hard place, intransigence can't hold back Canute's tide.
So if the services you were best placed to provide were a matter of national importance, you would walk away? Or would you say "look, let's not be silly, let's talk"? You would try for better, more reasonable, terms. You would be a Union of one.
I agree the Union has a role to play; as I understand it, the Union wasn't offered a discussion in the face of the difficulties, its members were presented with a pre-emptive management 'solution'.
The talking had been tried and failed. They weren't changing the unacceptable contract terms and I wasn't signing up to them. And yes, I'd walk away, national importance or not, rather than risk my future financial security for the sake of a few quid an hour. I expect fair pay for fair work, and that does not include putting a bet on which could cost me my home every time. Either we agree on terms, or we don't, and if we don't, I don't get any work (or pay) from them, and they can get someone else that's prepared to sign up to that contract. And no doubt they did. But no way was I agreeing to it.
As I said, I didn't strike, I 'resigned'. I'm not a union of one - I simply offer services at a price. No commitment on ether side. I don't have to accept any work, and they don't have to offer any. No guarantee of future work, no holiday pay, no sickness benefit, no staff canteen, etc. Just work goes one way and pay goes the other.
The affairs of the self-employed and those of multi-national companies have to be managed differently though. Mass resignation is not something either side would want - they'd somehow make it illegal anyway.
No mass resignation is perfectly OK.
Thou their might be the possability inciting it isn't?
No worked should ever be prevented from leaving their job, provided they serve out their notice period obviously.
The problem I find is when a union is actually of any more use than legal insurance.
The days of having only one employer per town are long gone, people have every opportunity to be educated and mobile, feel your industry isn't paying you enough, there is no real obstacle in your way to changing, compared with many 3rd world countries.
Places like the city which offer some of the higher paying jobs are very good at employing anyone of any race/gender from any background, it is on the whole a good meritocracy, thanks maggie.
(posted by an expelled from school, 2:1 from red brick, former city boy)
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Why were you expelled?
I agree, they are ... .but you asked me what I would do to keep my company buoyant, and as I pointed out (first sentence) in the response, I'm self-employed so the question doesn't arise. I merely pointed out the closest comparison I can, which is to walk away from a contract (which is about as close to resign as I can get) in order to answer the question you asked.
Given that my circumstances don't lend themselves to "strike", I offered what appears to be the closest answer I can get.
And, I might add, I've walked away amicably in those circumstances, and been offered more work (different contract/project) from the same firm later. I won't work under that contract, but do supply other services.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote