Revolting Behaviour (BA unite strike, RMT)

[TheAnimus]

I don't claim to know where how or why, but I think its fair to say something has gone horribly wrong in how unions behave and how they can morally effect behaviour of companies.

Whilst I doubt this disclosure will do anything to hinder my anonymity, I feel I should mention that on one side of my family there are strong connections to fairly active members the social reform, in the late 19th century and the co-operative movement of the 20th century. As such part of my upbringing always placed emphasis on the emergent traits of exploitation common in capitalist societies.

But something has gone quite terribly wrong. The Mill Towns where by there was only one employer, only one shop (owned by the sole employer) which forced a kind of servitude are completely gone.

No one has to work with only one employer, you aren't pigeon holed into a job for life, these circumstances have been solved by the modern working pratices.

Why have some failed to grasp this. We see people like Unite, still balloting to strike, give it up guys, you lost, you cost the company millions of pounds striking, only to then agree to the proposal that you hadn't read before striking.

Back in the day, it was quite common for an employer to continuously squeeze the staff, there was no alternative they couldn't go anywhere else. As such they could be taken to the breadline, so long as they were fit enough to work, that's good enough for the employer.

Now however with the emergence of the welfare state, free market economics, things are much different. No one has to work one specific job, for one employer. So when you see people like BA been effectively dictated to by workers, despite posting a 0.5bn loss, my blood boils. The fact that the union leaders dare to compare the plight of their members to that of those a hundred years ago is incredibly disrespectful.

Someone who is paid more than someone who does the same job as someone on a different airline, been asked, not to take a pay cut, but mearly work the same ratio. It is not remotely fair to the company.

People are naturally greedy, I don't blame them for that, but to be so incredibly stupid, to try and get money from an entity that is having to make deep cuts is just insane.

But it gets worse, now RMT are planning to strike because a company that effectively went bust (thanks to widely considered bullsh... contracts failing) are rather than saying "oh its good to have a new solvent employer" are going to effectively hold 2.5~M Londoners to ransom. If TFL hadn't bought them out, there would be no job, so now, by gaining leverage through inconviencing the public.

The thing is, at some point you have to say enough is enough, should someone be paid more because they band together in some kind of nepotistical cleek, or because they provide a valuable in demand skill?

And as for the likes of Unite who claim to have their members interests at heart, how come my legal insurance costs me around £5, per year, when your dues are considerably more, so much more that you've got plenty of money to donate to political parties..... That isn't value for money to your members, the modern free market will do a more comprehensive, more efficient task of that obviously.


end rant.

[Phage]

I had heard that the problem is with BASSA rather than Unite - but that is really splitting hairs. RMT ? Bob Crow is a megalomaniac.
There is a role for unions but BASSA and Bob take it over the line.

[oolon]

I think the tolpuddle martyrs would be spinning in there graves, not only in how the "union" is a layer of different management over the workers but also how good they (we all) have it but still complain.

Unite are pretty dumb they only people they are hurting is themselves, BA is just a flying pension fund really, who benefits most... unite members, if BA is made uncompetitive and goes to the wall its unite members old and new who will suffer the most. They have better terms and conditions than others in the industry be happy they do not work for ryan air. (who quote I stole).

[Salazaar]

<snip>

No one has to work for one employer but when you've got a family, are only earning just enough to keep them in house and home, are maybe not quite as well educated as some of your peers and if the economy happens to be in such a state that new jobs are few and far between, then you're going to have quite a lot of problems if you just up and quit one day.

You may have the luxury of being able to jump ships whenever you feel like it but don't think for a second that the majority of the rest of the country has. A job may not be for life any more but for most people changing jobs can be a life changing event, and not always for the best.

Which is not to say that the BA lot are right, I think they're taking the piss to be honest. But I do think that your views on the realities of employment are at best distorted and very possibly, horribly naive.

[TheAnimus]

No one has to work for one employer but when you've got a family, are only earning just enough to keep them in house and home, are maybe not quite as well educated as some of your peers and if the economy happens to be in such a state that new jobs are few and far between, then you're going to have quite a lot of problems if you just up and quit one day.

You may have the luxury of being able to jump ships whenever you feel like it but don't think for a second that the majority of the rest of the country has. A job may not be for life any more but for most people changing jobs can be a life changing event, and not always for the best.

Well my first comment would be why they have started a family if they can't afford to service them, this world is over populated by quite a large percentage. That would be my first complaint.

Secondly if the economy is contracting, it does mean that the job market is likely to be contracting too, this should not mean that employers can use it as an excuse to exploit people, I don't think many are seeing this.

Ultimately many people make bad choices, I grew up with plenty of people in Cornwall who had much better GCSEs than I did (what with an absence from school) those who have stayed put are jobless, those who have moved 20 miles or more are employed, but yes, the options are not hard and fast. Compare these to the ideals of the origins of trade unions thou.

But there comes a point when people have to be realistic. The old adage you can't get blood from a stone springs to mind. BA are loosing money hand over fist, if it continues everyone's out of a job, RMT guys are striking because of job security worries, the government bailed them out, the only reason any of them have a job is because the tax payers took on their liabilities. Why should a pensioner, or someone earning the london living wage subsidise their lifestyles which are considerably better than theirs? Or should it only be 150k+ people who are taxed for them?

This is my level of complaint, unionisation in its true sense is to prevent exploitation and un-fair pratices, we have a lot more progressive laws over worker rights, just imagine someone in dickensian england saying they are taking just 4 weeks for maternity....

Regrettably we are not seeing progress from many of these union people today, well except for themselves, Bob Crow obviously deserves more money than the heads of TFL, after all the TFL guys placements have been much more meritocratic.

Which is not to say that the BA lot are right, I think they're taking the piss to be honest. But I do think that your views on the realities of employment are at best distorted and very possibly, horribly naive.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10283137.stm I very much doubt one person at Unite would even take one day pay cut.

I'd love to know what views i have a horribly naive thou. I've worked quite a large range of jobs, I've never been un-employed. You could call my views repugnantly elitist thou, but I can't imagine how some of the lazy arse candidates I've seen who have been for years look themselves in the mirror, they are not willing to work remotely hard, and want to be paid unrealistic money. Unionisation there will help nothing.

[scaryjim]

... I very much doubt one person at Unite would even take one day pay cut. ...

I very much doubt many people at Unite earn in a year what he earns in a month, though...

[Bugbait]

This goes back to the entitlement culture that seems to be prevalent in many developed societies. Too many people believe they’re entitled to a job and in turn, behave in a manner that doesn’t reflect their remuneration or responsibilities to their employer. No, this doesn’t mean an employer can behave in a tyrannical manner either.

An important point TheAnimus raised was that a lot of BA staff are being paid well above industry average. Arguably, unions once had a place and still do in industries where potential exploitation is rife. However, if you’re getting paid more and treated better than those in similar or even same industries then it’s hard to call it exploitation.

If you truly deserve to be paid amount X for job Y then the market will confirm that, without the need for any artificial, self interested unions screwing around with it.

Well my first comment would be why they have started a family if they can't afford to service them, this world is over populated by quite a large percentage. That would be my first complaint.

I couldn’t agree more. Why should responsible people (ie. ME!) who wait until they’re emotional and financially prepared to have offspring be penalised by having to pay (more) taxes to support the scumbags that breed like bunnies without any social responsibility and expect The State to support them?

[Salazaar]

I'd love to know what views i have a horribly naive thou.

What's naive is to assume that a change of job for the man on the street is as easy as a change of job for you. If you have responsibilities to your children, your spouse and to servicing your mortgage/rent to keep them from having to live on the street then the choice to simply up and get another job is not necessarily there.

What is also naive is to assume that these people did not budget for having a family in the first place. To have your employer turn around after years at your job and tell you that you can either take a pay cut which would put you well below your established budget, or to get out and find another job is a sickening, terrifying thing to have happen regardless of the economic circumtances that prompted it.

And to suggest that it's okay for people to be priced out of having children is abhorrent. If things have really come to that then there's something significantly wrong with the system.

[TooNice]

To have your employer turn around after years at your job and tell you that you can either take a pay cut which would put you well below your established budget, or to get out and find another job is a sickening, terrifying thing to have happen regardless of the economic circumtances that prompted it.

What does the contract say? A job for life with ever increasing wages? It's not exactly the formula that allow the company to stay competitive, if the competitor is able to offer similar/better level service for less because they have a lower cost.

What if the alternative is the whole company going under? Would you be willing to risk the job of your colleagues too, even if some of them would've made it with the cut due to having less expense than you do? It's not you would be in a stronger position than if you'd taken a cut, it'll be far worse.

I am sure it is terrifying. But if you fall off a building, do you grab the nearest person to you, not so that he'll pull you up, but so that you can drag him with you?

[Bugbait]

What's naive is to assume that a change of job for the man on the street is as easy as a change of job for you. If you have responsibilities to your children, your spouse and to servicing your mortgage/rent to keep them from having to live on the street then the choice to simply up and get another job is not necessarily there.

I don’t see it as naïve, more a case of asking why others choose not to set their bar a little higher? It’s presumptuous to think that he hasn’t considered these things. Maybe he has chosen his current lifestyle over the “norm” of settling down and procreating. I have several married friends who have decided they never want children.

What is also naive is to assume that these people did not budget for having a family in the first place. To have your employer turn around after years at your job and tell you that you can either take a pay cut which would put you well below your established budget, or to get out and find another job is a sickening, terrifying thing to have happen regardless of the economic circumtances that prompted it.

Presuming that you will always make the same or more money is a fault in planning. This happens a lot but it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take responsibility for it. By taking responsibility I don’t mean you can necessarily change it, atleast not immediately but you should learn from it and try to avoid it in future. This happened to my father during the recession in Australia in the 80’s, take a 20% pay cut or loose your job. Not great times from what I remember but you suck it up, make the necessary changes and move on.

And to suggest that it's okay for people to be priced out of having children is abhorrent. If things have really come to that then there's something significantly wrong with the system.

This is exactly the “entitlement” mentally that I was talking about above. Everyone should have the “option” to have children but this is very different to being “entitled” to it. You absolutely should have to make sacrifices or changes to your lifestyle to have children. Anyone who doesn’t see that probably shouldn’t procreate.

How does this all relate back to the original topic? I would argue many unions have transformed from being representatives for the exploited masses (employees) to champions of self interest. Calling it greed is probably a bit harsh. Union officials, propped up by their members strut around like they’re entitled (there’s that word again) to steady pay rises and increasingly better work conditions. Job positions, remuneration, and even conditions to an extent need to reflect the current market. It’s unrealistic and naïve to expect your pay cheque to increase and your lifestyle to only get better over time, not without many adjustments and bumps along the way.

[TheAnimus]

What's naive is to assume that a change of job for the man on the street is as easy as a change of job for you. If you have responsibilities to your children, your spouse and to servicing your mortgage/rent to keep them from having to live on the street then the choice to simply up and get another job is not necessarily there.

Why is the choice for another job not there? If there are no other jobs around right now, it might be that the economy is horrifically depressed, as such its likely that any company can not afford to pay more. An example of this striking attitude could be seen in many effected by the minors strike, the complete opposition to any reform. The balance sheets of the companies couldn't be sustained, so they collapsed. I'm not saying people should be happy, but in the same way that someone who might have budgeted their mortgage on their £175k income might have to downsize because of a 50p tax rate. Thats life, should they refuse to pay tax because they are now going to have to downsize to support their quality of life?

Right now as a nation we are so horrifically in debt, the only way we are going to get out of it is via significant increase in taxation, so there are going to be many of people who are finding their budgeted plans don't add up the way they once did. How would striking help, they can't get any more money, we have the debt obligation already.

What I'm saying is that mostly when those alternatives don't exist, its not because of 'mill townian economics' but because of macro scale depression. The example would be a BA pilot who has had to take substantial wage cut, or a BA stewardess who is faced with the same thing, the alternative jobs already pay a lot less.

These are the ones I'm complaing about, if its a case of a mill town, then unionisation is the only viable way of workers forcing change, that said if politicians were doing their job even in that circumstance it wouldn't be requried.

regardless of the economic circumtances that prompted it.

I'm focusing on that, because you can not disregard such a pivotal key point.

And to suggest that it's okay for people to be priced out of having children is abhorrent. If things have really come to that then there's something significantly wrong with the system.

And why not? China has as time has shown benefited from the child limits, or do you think that the overpopulation issue will solve itself?

[Salazaar]

I'm not saying that there's a good substitute to planning, choice and responsibility, there isn't. But I am trying to get across the point that market forces cannot be the only factor in making these kinds of decisions because, like it or not, people's lives are very meaningfully effected by them. And not just the employees but the employees families and dependants.

Blithly waving aside these factor by saying 'oh they can just go and get another job' is, frankly, a disgusting attitude.

[TheAnimus]

Blithly waving aside these factor by saying 'oh they can just go and get another job' is, frankly, a disgusting attitude.

Wait a second, I'm saying they can either like it or go get another job.

If no other job available for them, then they have to like it. You could argue the job market may at times be a monopsony, but to just say its disgusting is child like.

What about the people who are going to get massive tax hikes? Why should someone be forced to drastically change their lifestyle so some tube worker does not have too.

There is a finite amount of the resource, and when people like the RMT or the BA strike they are getting more than the efficiency they bring. How on earth is that fair?

[Salazaar]

Wait a second, I'm saying they can either like it or go get another job.

And I'm saying there must also be a middle ground, both sides have to give up something though. Corporations cannot just turn around and dictate terms to please their shareholders, and expect everyone to bend over and accept it or move on. On the other hand employees must face the reality of economics.

I'm not saying there aren't circumstances where there is no money to pay the workers and cuts must be made but you also see situations where chief execs get large bonuses/pay cheques and then turn around and say that a large chunk of their workforce need to take pay cuts, you've got to wonder in who's interest the company is working.

By all means, companies should make money, we all like getting richer but we need some level of defense against those companies making it at the expense of their employees. Just saying that they could get other jobs is fairly horrific given the impact that can have, and collective bargaining is fairly effective though it can be taken too far.

(When I said earlier I didn't like the BA situation, I'm afraid I wasn't completely clear. I think both sides have behaved pretty poorly and I have little sympathy for either of them. Similarly the Post Office strikes recently.)

[Bugbait]

But I am trying to get across the point that market forces cannot be the only factor in making these kinds of decisions because, like it or not, people's lives are very meaningfully effected by them. And not just the employees but the employees families and dependants.

Someone, somewhere has to pay for any “inequalities”. So just because the BA staff have budgeted for a £60k income, it’s unfair that they adjust (as market demands) to a lifestyle based on £30k? Any responsible worker should atleast have a fair idea of their worth in the industry. If you know you’re getting paid above normal then you should have some plans and expectations that it your income could drop and correct itself in the future. Of course many don’t but that doesn’t make it unfair, just unfortunate.

Market forces aren’t the only considerations. However, as long as conditions comply with minimum guidelines for health and safety, etc. what else is there to consider? An assessment impact on a change in hours, job satisfaction, and income for every individual employee affected is ludicrous, completely subjective and ultimately pointless.

Blithly waving aside these factor by saying 'oh they can just go and get another job' is, frankly, a disgusting attitude.

Why is it disgusting? No one is saying they should up and quit on the spot. What is so disgusting about seeking an alternative job while still in current employ? What am I missing here? If they can’t find another job with the conditions and pay that they want then that indicates that something is wrong with their expectations doesn’t it?

[TheAnimus]

I'd like to actually see such an example. Most firms know the cost of hiring and training staff, they also know they can't fire someone for not taking a paycut and then hire someone in their place.

I would still love to see which parts of my view are naive, because frankly I get pissed off with everyone who accuses someone who has a realistic viewpoint been labelled uncaring/naive.

Its the same lot that seem to run the labour party, look at the debt we've got, during the boom years we squandered all the money. We've never seen this much debt in the history of the nation.

Instead some people like unite put round this idea that you can take, take and take, that your entitled.

No one is. I don't care if just because someone's got a kid they feel they should be, they're not, they're never going to go hungry, thirsty, lack medication, education or a roof over their heads. RMT people punishing Londoners who are ultimately footing the bill for their bail out makes me sick.