#11
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
As for getting a non union labour force, I think you will find the UK has laws that give all employee's the right to be part of a union, so that ain't ever going to happen here. Last edited by Ash W; 30th March 2010 at 05:09 AM. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Mind you, no one is forcing these people to work - if thier conditions and these changes are so difficult to deal with, why not quit? No one is forcing you to go to work. If this continues, they won't have jobs anyway and will also cost the other thousands who work for the company who have embraced change to keep the airline going. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Saw on the BBC news today that BA are leasing aircraft and crew from various European airlines at the cost of about 5m GBP per day to try and keep things going.
I liked the comment from the Union rep about how upset people would be to be paying premium rates for BA service, but being put on these (somehow) 2nd rate airlines. Obviously the Union rep has never flown Euro traveler. As for the passengers, all that were interviewed said how they appreciated actually getting to where they paid good money to get taken to, rather than being taken for a ride by the union. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The current Labour Government relies on Unites financial donations - and thats why there has been no Government intervention apart from a few media snippets for news bulletins. I should know, I work with both BA and Unite. Quote:
A slew of UK airlines employ greater proportions of flexi agency staff who have no recourse to joining a union. Agency staff do not get an automatic right to join a union - thats why theres never been mutiny at Ryanair, Easyjet etc. And that tells you how much "support" the union has from the public. In every TV news item/newspaper, you will be hard pressed to find anyone supporting the brain-dead union. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Saj I was clearly saying that what I said is what is being reported in the media. Rightly or wrongly. Anyway it makes perfect sense to me. The union has basically lost the influence it has with the (new Labour) Government as it has moved more centre left, tending even more to the right (hence the lack of action by Brown) and they want Labour to move back towards the left by getting rid of New Labour. In other words the unions want to get more control of Labour. What they are putting in in terms of funding is irrelevant, if it was Brown would be taking notice. In doing so they will clearly get rid of the current Government. Maybe in the current environment it is a smart move, as Brown is tiped to loose power anyway, so the damage of a big spill like this would be minor.
As for unions in the work place there is nothing stopping, nor compelling an employee from choosing to join a union. Likewise there is nothing that a company can do to stop employee's from joining a union. Ie it is an employees right to join a union if those so wish. That being said a company doesn't have to recognise a union, but still must consult employee's, or their representatives on certain issues. As for the public support, have a read of some of the news papers. Most letters and commentary is generally in favour of the union. Again though I do think in some ways this is the media's way of trying to put the last nails into Brown. Last edited by Ash W; 30th March 2010 at 07:10 AM. |
#16
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/n..._the_strikers/ http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/b...trike-your-say In an economic downturn, the cabin crew should be grateful they even have a job - although the financial cost of this strike will almost certainly mean more job losses and getting shot of the striking workers will be the first move BA management makes. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Saj do you actually live in the UK? If so you would know about some of the other industrial disputes that have been going on for some time and the discontent that the unions have with the current Labour Government. Apart from this dispute between members of Unite and BA, there is also a current dispute between the RMT and National Rail (which may see a 4 day national strike next week), there has also been major industrial action at Royal Mail, as well as the usual goings on in London Underground.
At no point was I giving my personal view or take on the current dispute, I was saying what was being reported in the news papers. Considering this is an Australian board, with mostly Australian members it is clear that many back home wouldn't get quite the same take on current English politics through Australian media, hence why I mentioned it in this thread. Yet for some reason you feel the need to attack the view as wrong. As I said it isn't my view, but what is being reported here in the UK (where I currently live). I will say it once again, last week I read in either the Times or the Independent an editorial that was linking all these disputes with a plan in the union movement as a whole (not Unite specifically) to return the Labour party back to the left. I am not saying it is right, I am not saying it is wrong, but THAT WAS WHAT WAS BEING REPORTED. If you disagree fine, but don't say I am wrong, when all I was doing was reporting what I read. As for public opinion again I was reporting what I was reading in the real newspapers, and rightly or wrongly the public sentiment was in favour of the unions. I will add the disclaimer that this was last week before the 2nd round of strikes. I didn't get a chance to read a newspaper yesterday or at the weekend to see what is being reported now, though the BBC, after the report I saw last night, now seems to be leaning the way of the airline. As for unionism I am 100% right. An employee in the UK is free to choose to join a union if they wish, they are also free to choose to not join a union if they wish. Employers have the right to recognise unions, likewise they have the right to not recognise unions, in which case they have a legal obligation consulte with EMPLOYEE's (or their appointed representative) on certain issues. This is the LAW, FULL STOP. Don't beleive me have a look at the TUC website. (for those in Aus the TUC is akin to the ACTU) Though of course in real life things are not so simple. You have given some very valid examples of what happens in real life, but what these examples clearly show is the way some companies can and do to counter the effect unionism can have in their workplaces. For example you are talking about agency staff. Agency staff do not work for the airline do they? No they work for the agency. So of course the airline is insulated from any effect unionism may have because the employee's don't work directly for them. That does not take away the employee's legal right to be a union member, it does however minimise any effect it may have though. Of course using contract companies doesn't mean a company isn't caught up in industrial disputes. I recall late last year there was a dispute with one of the handling companies at Heathrow. Whilst the dispute was between the company and the employee's of that company, the effect was felt by customer airlines of that handling company. As for my personal take on this dispute, I agree 100% with you the employee's should be grateful they have a job, and their actions are doing untold damage to BA, which may well bite them in the bum later on. I do also agree with the newspaper reports that the Union movement is using this and other high profile industrial disputes to oust the current Labour leadership. Clearly everyone has given up any hope of Brown and New Labour being returned to power. The behind the scenes political in-fighting for control of Labour has started. Last edited by Ash W; 30th March 2010 at 09:49 PM. |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Mike I read real news papers. The editorial that I was refering to was in either the Times or the Independant last week (I think it was Tuesday).
Though interestingly enough when it comes to public opinion the link to the Guardian that Saj has provided seems to be about 50/50 on the issue. As for the other link I would take that with a grain of salt, it is hardly a real news paper. Just online drivvel. I should point out that I have no barrow to push, I don't have any involvement in BA or Unite, nor do I vote in any UK elections. As I said I reported what I have read in the papers here as I know the Australian media in particular wouldn't cover the issue fully. Whilst of course the main issue is Unite V's BA, there are other factors at play which cannot be discounted. Anyway here are some documents that you may want to read. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ol-Labour.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ies-claim.html (Yes I know it is from the Tory party, so take what you will from it) http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/61438,...he-unite-union http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...cademics-walsh 100 Academics behind the Union. |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Thanks for the links. As for Unions, I'm not a fan and years ago, vowed never again ever to be involved again and consider them dinosaurs from a past era.
Whatever motivates the current Union activity with BA, it's definitely not (in my opinion) in their members interest to send BA into oblivion ulimately leaving them (and many others) jobless... just to satisfy their own antiquated lust for power? BA can then join the British Motor Industry in the pages of history as yet another failed enterprise from the once great Empire. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|