Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Printable View
Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
If the offer on the table 'would have settled the dispute' why was strike action even necessary?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
As far as I heard, the latest offer on the table from BA was conditional upon talks continuing and no strike action being taken. Therefore when strike action was called the offer was withdrawn. This should have been no surprise to the UNITE union but instead they present it to the media as BA management 'wanting to go to war with the unions'.
Both management and the union are equally culpable of the systematic destruction of the BA brand. It is truly amazing to behold. Competitor airlines must be rubbing their hands with delight.
Nonsense, Unite announced strike dates in the wake of the ballot and said they would conduct an electronic ballot of their members on the BA offer. There is nothing out of the ordinary about that, it's standard procedure. The strike would not have gone ahead if the offer was accepted by BA workers and would have gone ahead if it was rejected. Pretty simple, really.Quote:
Originally Posted by BEEJ
They've now even gone as far as to say the strike will be halted if the offer is put back. There's no reason for Walsh and the BA management not to do this if they actually want the strike to end with a negotiated settlement.
Walsh would have known the strike would not have immediately been called off just because an offer was made (as that never happens) and so was able to make the offer knowing it would not be accepted on his ridiculous terms. The BA management wants the strike the go ahead (further evidence of which is the enormous amount of preparation undertaken) so they can destroy the obstacle to driving down wages and conditions - a highly unionised workforce.
Well if that is true and the UNITE members via their ballot effectively rejected the offer on the table, why all the fuss about it now having been removed?Quote:
Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs
So is that an admission by the union that the decision of the members to reject that offer was in fact wrong?Quote:
Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs
If the offer was regarded last week as being of no value at all, why is its removal suddenly being hailed as an example of macho management?
Eh? They didn't get to ballot their members on the offer. BA withdrew it before they could.Quote:
Originally Posted by BEEJ
They haven't rejected any offer!Quote:
Originally Posted by BEEJ
In any other world that would be called sensible contingency planning in an attempt to minimise the disruption to passengers.Quote:
Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs
But maybe they should just not have bothered to make such feeble attempts to protect the BA brand?
It's just a matter of time anyway before BA sinks into some form of reconstructed after-life within which it will be a shadow of its former self. Sadly everyone will lose out.
100 industrial relations experts academics send a letter to........................................ the Guardian. Now there's a shocker. Walsh will be quaking in his boots. :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs
(I am no fan of Walsh but I don't think he will lose any sleep over this.)
Guardian-reading academics support union. Surprising.Quote:
Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs
Quote:
Originally Posted by BEEJ
Absolutely agree both are culpable but the Unions have been watching too much "Life on Mars" recently and seem stuck on a 1970's timewarp which will be a contributing factor I suspect if (when) Labour lose the next election. BA will be out of business in 5 years
I'm not sure anyone was suggesting the letter has struck a decisive blow for the B.A. workers.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinello59
How do you know they're uniformly Guardian-reading?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Definitely. So many of the Unions are carrying on like it's the 70s.Quote:
Originally Posted by whiskyhibby
What undid Labour then, looks like it could undo them now.
Folk need to move on because labour relations have moved on. Unions do have a role in influencing and negotiating. But right now, some of them are carrying on like the worst of them in the 70s and 80s.
Quote: Lucky / Nationalise B.A. - Beefster / Why?
Why no'? Although I'm biased & would re-nationalise everything gifted to the private sector since '79. The only thing in life I don't blame Thatcher for is our S.Cup failing, given that predates her by a couple of years.
The banks behaviour before during & after the recent catastrophe underlines what happens when you allow private individuals & groups to run anything without heavy government intervention.
B.A. has become a shambles, despite or perhaps because of the axe-wielders. These days very few unions try to bring their members out without it being the last throw of the dice; most folk can ill-afford to lose the money & we are unfortunately moving away from collective action anyway. B.A. management are trying to break the union once & for all, probably before whoring themselves off in some seedy sell-off.
Let me tell you, boy, come the revolution..actually the games about to start.
YouTube - Pay Check: What is UNISON's Dave Prentis on?
I know it's UNISON, but the point is the same. Trade Unionistas like to talk about fat cats, but what about if that fat cat is one of their general secretaries?
Hypocrisy.
Bet you when BA go bust, these self same people will be moaning about how the government didnt bail them out. What about all that lost business because they were bickering about how much more money they ought to get for dishing out tea and coffee?
A combination of an educated guess and the assumption that, if the majority read another newspaper, they'd have written to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by LiverpoolHibs
Still no reason? I'm looking for the benefits of nationalising BA to the customers and country.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malthibby
Would you want Easyjet and BMI nationalised too?
:wink:
As they're industrial relations academics I'd have assumed that they all read a number of different papers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
Why does the biggest ringpiece involved in this debacle have to be Scottish? It's like turning the clock back 30 years, I thought we had done away with these fuds, always Scousers or Scots.....so predictable and phecking embarrassing.
Isn't Willie Walsh Irish? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by corrie greens
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beefster
That's because there isn't any.
Why the hell anyone would want to nationalise an airline is really truly beyond me.
The privatisation of BA, railways and our utilities was madness. All these companies were sold below market value and have ripped of the British people ever since. BA was the UK's national airline whilst the others should be services for the people not used as a tool to screw as much out of us as possible.
The gas, electric and water charges are ridiculously high not to mention that madness of rail fares. Remember the water meters being introduced with people having water cut off!!!
Getting Back to BA, it does appear Willie Walsh is out to destroy the union and the conditions of its workforce. In industrial disputes there very few winners. But if BA goes bust the blame lies at Willie Walsh and the board for embarking on this 1970's macho management style not the workers who are protecting the jobs and conditions
Because state ownership of everything has consistently been proven to be the most effective way of managing an economy, as witnessed by the economic successes of Cuba, North Korea and the USSR. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by SiMar
---------- Post added at 07:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:12 PM ----------
Like having to be part of a team of 2 people handing out tea and coffee as opposed to 3?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Passionate post big on feet stamping but short on detail.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucky
Privatisation was madness, really? Why was it madness?
You could start by stating why you think the British Government should fly aeroplanes, drive trains, generate electricity, drill for gas or supply water and if you think they could do it as efficiently or as effectively as the private sector?
And even if you do somehow come up with a solid reason as to why politicians should be in charge of such things who do you think would be paying for the government to provide these 'services' and how do you think that money would be raised?
I would then be interested for you to show why you think the £9bn floatation of British Gas was below market value.
Swiftly followed by your thoughts on the fact that water meters can save huge amounts of water (the worlds most valuable commodity) from being wasted and metering can actually substantially reduce peoples bills as they are charged for what they use (frugally) compared to avergaing out the cost of what everyone uses (not so frugally).
Finally if Willie Walsh is out to break the Union then good luck to him, I've yet to see any sensible argument supporting the Unions position here, BA workers will still be amongst the best if not the best paid cabin crew in the industry yet the Unions would rather impose £7m a day losses on the company.