Unite PRICKS

[simmo]

Agreed - and its not "not having a holiday" I object to. It's Unite making me lose the money I've spent on the holiday that really winds me up. I could spend that money on treating my children, or put some to charity, or buying my season ticket to Falmer etc etc etc.

I'd bet my mortgage that if the Stewards at the Albion belonged to Unite and went on strike for a season and people on here missed matches because of it then all hell would break lose.

The problem with Unions is that they tend to be run by the braindead who think strike, strike, strike. Instead they should look at ways to cause the company pain and not the customer - work to rule, not completeing paperwork etc. The teaching unions are beginning to realise this but the dinosaurs at Unite and it's equally stupid membership aren't.

I agree totally the unions are run by dinosaurs in this country that just think (and love) strike, strike, strike. I remember many years ago in an industrial dispute in Australia I heard that the bus (or maybe train) drivers refused to accept customers fares for their journey, how clever is that! It hits the owners in the balls as they still have to pay fuel/operating costs etc but they get no income from fares and of course the general public loved them as they got their service for free and it still operated as per usual.

 

[bhaexpress]

Agreed - and its not "not having a holiday" I object to. It's Unite making me lose the money I've spent on the holiday that really winds me up. I could spend that money on treating my children, or put some to charity, or buying my season ticket to Falmer etc etc etc.

I'd bet my mortgage that if the Stewards at the Albion belonged to Unite and went on strike for a season and people on here missed matches because of it then all hell would break lose.

The problem with Unions is that they tend to be run by the braindead who think strike, strike, strike. Instead they should look at ways to cause the company pain and not the customer - work to rule, not completeing paperwork etc. The teaching unions are beginning to realise this but the dinosaurs at Unite and it's equally stupid membership aren't.

I agree with what you're saying and I sympathise but I would say that whilst some unions are stupid (BA staff being a prime example) I am not so sure about Unite. Most unions these days are a bit more aware about the ramifications of strike action and strikes are very much a last resort. Wildcat strikes are a thing of the past thankfully but I have been the innocent victim of more than one of those as I'm sure have plenty of others.

 

[bhaexpress]

I agree totally the unions are run by dinosaurs in this country that just think (and love) strike, strike, strike. I remember many years ago in an industrial dispute in Australia I heard that the bus (or maybe train) drivers refused to accept customers fares for their journey, how clever is that! It hits the owners in the balls as they still have to pay fuel/operating costs etc but they get no income from fares and of course the general public loved them as they got their service for free and it still operated as per usual.

In 1942, with the country facing a very real threat of invasion Australian dockers went on strike for more money as they felt they could squeeze their employers due to the seriousness of the situation. Australia has much 'better' employee protection than we do but it's counter productive much of the time.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I agree with what you're saying and I sympathise but I would say that whilst some unions are stupid (BA staff being a prime example) I am not so sure about Unite.

I've not seen or heard any evidence that Unite have tried to think of other ways to do this in, say, the BA strike. Maybe the cabin crew could have refused to sell onboard goods That would have hit BA and the customers would have still got to their destinations.

Until Unite provide the evidence that shows they've done these things I will keep the opinion that they are stupid - especially given the two numbskull clowns they have running it !

 

[simmo]

In 1942, with the country facing a very real threat of invasion Australian dockers went on strike for more money as they felt they could squeeze their employers due to the seriousness of the situation. Australia has much 'better' employee protection than we do but it's counter productive much of the time.

I am not really arguing about Australian employment laws and strikes in general in Australia. I am just given a (good to me) example of how a Union can come up with industrial action that isn't a strike (me thinks union leaders in this country could be a little more imaginitive too).

PS Miners in the UK (Kent I think) went on strike for a brief period during World War II as well.

 

[bhaexpress]

I've not seen or heard any evidence that Unite have tried to think of other ways to do this in, say, the BA strike. Maybe the cabin crew could have refused to sell onboard goods That would have hit BA and the customers would have still got to their destinations.

Until Unite provide the evidence that shows they've done these things I will keep the opinion that they are stupid - especially given the two numbskull clowns they have running it !

The BA strike is sheer greed, no sympathy whatsoever. I should mention that while some airlines staff make money from their inflight sales it's not really the case with BA. I think you'll find that some Heathrow BA staff find the selling of duty-frees a bit tacky, they are making a lot more money as a basic salary that just about all of their competitors. The BAA situation is different. However, as none of us are a party to the inner machinations of this dispute we're not in a position to say what was and wasn't done in order to prevent this situation.

 

[bhaexpress]

I am not really arguing about Australian employment laws and strikes in general in Australia. I am just given a (good to me) example of how a Union can come up with industrial action that isn't a strike (me thinks union leaders in this country could be a little more imaginitive too).

PS Miners in the UK (Kent I think) went on strike for a brief period during World War II as well.

Well you could equally argue that Management could be a little more imaginative as well. I am neither for or against either side as I very much doubt that all the facts are in the open. I do think that these days unions tend to be a lot more circumspect about taking industrial action and in fact now they are legally obliged to take certain steps before they do which in years gone by they didn't.

 

[fruitnveg]

I agree with what you're saying and I sympathise but I would say that whilst some unions are stupid (BA staff being a prime example) I am not so sure about Unite.

You do know Unite are the union behind the BA strikes as well?

 

[simmo]

Well you could equally argue that Management could be a little more imaginative as well. I am neither for or against either side as I very much doubt that all the facts are in the open. I do think that these days unions tend to be a lot more circumspect about taking industrial action and in fact now they are legally obliged to take certain steps before they do which in years gone by they didn't.

It is the unions actions i.e the strike, that are causing the inconvenience to the general public which is what matters to those not directly involved, not the actions of the management. It really is up to the Union leaders to be more imaginitive in coming up with ways to get their point across without inconveniencing the public with the same approach every time.

I do agree with your last statement about the lack of strikes, nowadays thank goodness, but still there are those Union leaders, Bob Crow for e.g who love a strike.

 

[Castello]

The BA strike is sheer greed, no sympathy whatsoever. I should mention that while some airlines staff make money from their inflight sales it's not really the case with BA. I think you'll find that some Heathrow BA staff find the selling of duty-frees a bit tacky, they are making a lot more money as a basic salary that just about all of their competitors. The BAA situation is different. However, as none of us are a party to the inner machinations of this dispute we're not in a position to say what was and wasn't done in order to prevent this situation.

The thing I find most depressing about this thread is how people armed with nothing but an opinion, and in some cases a particularly badly thought out opinion, feel that they are able to be experts ona situation without knowing all the facts.

The main problem with the BA strike was how the national media decisded almost exclusively to take one side in the dispute and only portray that view.

The work of cabin crew doesnt involve swanning off to foreign climes for a weekly holiday. Often it involves nursemaiding a bunch of drunken holidaymakers and worse. When they get to their destination they have to, under CAA regulations, stay in hotels over a certain standard and pay for all the over charged foods themselves. They are not allowed to purchse foods from anywhere else due to security reasons. (in short would you want cabin crew coming down with food poisoning during a flight.) All of this has to be paid out of wages that have consistently been cut over the years.

It is true that some longer term staff may be on decent wages, but the majority are on wages that have been reduced. There are three different sets of terms and conditions amongst BA cabin crew, with the lowest (based at Gatwick) on just over 12k a year. The MD of BA who is on a lot more than 12 k, wanted to break a union. The staff had already agreed to take cuts, and walsh wanted more.

These are the fact based upon personal discussions with the people involved in the strike. They do not come from the media.

However as is so often the case, it is easier to moan than go and get some real facts to base an opinion on.

 

[Eastleigh Seagull]

These are the fact based upon personal discussions with the people involved in the strike. They do not come from the media.
.

And of course such people didnt have a biased opinion either - surely the simple fact is that a company losing millions of pounds every day needs to cut costs - and as its major cost is staff then perhaps, just perhaps, a wage increase wasnt on the cards?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

The work of cabin crew doesnt involve swanning off to foreign climes for a weekly holiday. Often it involves nursemaiding a bunch of drunken holidaymakers and worse. When they get to their destination they have to, under CAA regulations, stay in hotels over a certain standard and pay for all the over charged foods themselves. They are not allowed to purchse foods from anywhere else due to security reasons. (in short would you want cabin crew coming down with food poisoning during a flight.) All of this has to be paid out of wages that have consistently been cut over the years.

It is true that some longer term staff may be on decent wages, but the majority are on wages that have been reduced. There are three different sets of terms and conditions amongst BA cabin crew, with the lowest (based at Gatwick) on just over 12k a year. The MD of BA who is on a lot more than 12 k, wanted to break a union. The staff had already agreed to take cuts, and walsh wanted more.

These are the fact based upon personal discussions with the people involved in the strike. They do not come from the media.

However as is so often the case, it is easier to moan than go and get some real facts to base an opinion on.

I'm sorry but either the crew that you've spoken to or the crew I know are telling lies. Cabin crew get their meals while away paid for according to the crew know. If they don't want to eat in the hotel they have to pay for it ( and many do choose this route just to get away from hotel food ).

The reason people form an opinion without the so called facts is because the Unions, when calling industrial action that will affect the public, fail to make their case clear to said public. Not ONCE did I see a coherant interview from the Unite union leaders during the BA dispute. Everytime they were interviewed they were more interested in attacking BA than laying out thier case. Therefore, the public form the opinion that the strikers are greedy etc.

My view of Unite in particular was mainly formed from my girlfriends experience - thankfully she no longer belongs to the union. My advice to anyone thinking of joining a union is to avoid Unite at all costs - they take your fees and then, unless you work for some high profile company such as BA or BAA, forget any assistance. All the Unite leaders are interested in is their six figure salaries and air time on TV to massage their over inflated egos.

 

[The Oldman]

The thing I find most depressing about this thread is how people armed with nothing but an opinion, and in some cases a particularly badly thought out opinion, feel that they are able to be experts ona situation without knowing all the facts.

The main problem with the BA strike was how the national media decisded almost exclusively to take one side in the dispute and only portray that view.

The work of cabin crew doesnt involve swanning off to foreign climes for a weekly holiday. Often it involves nursemaiding a bunch of drunken holidaymakers and worse. When they get to their destination they have to, under CAA regulations, stay in hotels over a certain standard and pay for all the over charged foods themselves. They are not allowed to purchse foods from anywhere else due to security reasons. (in short would you want cabin crew coming down with food poisoning during a flight.) All of this has to be paid out of wages that have consistently been cut over the years.

It is true that some longer term staff may be on decent wages, but the majority are on wages that have been reduced. There are three different sets of terms and conditions amongst BA cabin crew, with the lowest (based at Gatwick) on just over 12k a year. The MD of BA who is on a lot more than 12 k, wanted to break a union. The staff had already agreed to take cuts, and walsh wanted more.

These are the fact based upon personal discussions with the people involved in the strike. They do not come from the media.

However as is so often the case, it is easier to moan than go and get some real facts to base an opinion on.

As ever there are two sides to any dispute. There are many BA staff including cabin crew who believe that BASSA, the cabin crew section of Unite, badly let down its members. This view was reinforced by the High Court judgement ruling that the first vote for industrial action was invalid.
The cuts offered by the union were only very short term whilst the airline was looking for permanent savings but offered pay rises to compensate for changes to working practices.
Other staff at BA had already negotiated deals along these lines.

 

[drew]

Take the blinkers off you fool - firstly these ridiculously deep cuts haven't even been announced yet - its all just media speculation and scaremongering coming from the left who just cant face up to the fact that yet again they have ballsed up the economy. Cuts will be made - and they have to be made because Labour made spending promises that we dont have the money to keep - simple as that. For instance at the Ministry of Defence (which remained the worst funded department under Labour) - at the end of the Labour tenure the MoD had made spending commitments that were so out of line with its revenue that if it were a company it would have been declared bankrupt. Just enlighten us to what you mean by revenue. As far as I am aware, the MoD does not have a revenue, it has a budget. Perhaps you would like to see the defence of the realm passed over to private ownership?

We are in a worse condition than every single advanced economy absolute bollocks. Exactly where are you statistics to back this up? Debt as a percentage of GDP I believe is higher in Germany, France, Canada and Japan (note germany's economic growth today) because Labour/Gordon Brown believed they had defeated the economic cycle that has existed for as long as countries have traded. With this false belief the government believed it could keep spending and the economy could keep growing except, just as in 1979, it hasnt so its left to the Tories to mop up the mess - and for the bitter left in the country - led by the unions to criticise the evil Tory party.

Prior to the recession, Government spending as a percentage of GDP was lower than when the Tories left power in 1997.

The banks operated (and operate) nationally and internationally under the laws/framework/rules/economic policy/guidelines whatever you want to call it that the government of the day allows.

Shame there wasn't just enough time in parliament what with the fox hunting bill etc. (that matters so much to all of us) to legislate against the madness of say 110-125% mortgages as an example of something that could have been made illegal before the whole deck of cards come crashing down.

Your posts are so full of polarised bullshit. You would think the only government that has heard a bill on fox hunting is a labour one! It was debated in 92,93 and 95, during the terms of your beloved Tory party.

As for the banks, deregulation was commenced long before Labour came to power and even during their administration, many Tories felt there should be even more reliance on a free market.

they aren't standing for better pay and conditions. they are asking for reward despite their obligation in the conditions not being met. You should read all the details rather than just be selective on a minor point i dont suppose it crossed the mind of the union to ask for a 50% bonus in light of the target being missed (im sure they will now and reach a compromise, claiming a victory to their members). we see where employers are respected rather than battled they can usually be quite reasonable, they know a pissed off workforce doesnt help their aims. unfortunatly unions, having won so many rights, find themselves with little to do but create rubble rousing arguments. funny how less than 50% members in this case even bothered to vote.

You bang on about unions as if every single one is proposing strike action. Get it into perspective. There are millions of people who are members of unions and have never been on strike in their life but a few strikes get in the media and all of a sudden the right wing are up in arms as if there is a political war on!!!

Good answer................if it was 1960, it is now 2010 all these things that you list are covered by employment laws at both the national and European levels.

Also as it is in 2010 most people that live in the real world realise that they are pretty lucky to actually have a job as they have seen numerous members of the family/friends made redundant etc. If they are lucky enough to still have a job you can bet your bottom dollar a lot of them will have a 0% pay rise. That is why they get a little bit cheesed off when Unions call strikes for what they believe are spurious reasons (in this case for a bonus for a target that wasn't acheived amongst gripes) One minor aspect of the dispute but I suspect you will continue to use at the main thrust of your whingingespecially at this time and also especially when they have a major impact on their leisure/holiday time, which in a very tough economic period is one of the few bright spots of the year they can look forward to and enjoy.

I know and I agree they were once a very important instition in our society and have indeed helped bring about major changes in bettering the working conditions and pay for all UK employees, but union's overall net benefit to us as a country ended in the 60's and 70's and really all of the things that fc listed are nowadays irrelevant because they are enshrined in UK and European law. And if employers were as generous and philanthropic as you would like us to believe they you wouldn't need those laws to protect employees.

Unions may take up a case in the event of that person having a claim of unfair dismissal for e.g and in that way they can be of use to an individual I totally agree (and for that reason I can understand why anybody would join one) however, on a national scale they are predominately a vehicle for left wing (predominately Communist your rantings are having me in fits!!!!) political agitators whom just love to have strikes and cause disruption (I mean have you ever seen Bob Crow saying no I hope my members don't vote for a strike!) because it suits their own political agendas, without having any consideration for the long term damage it may do the members they are supposed to be representing.

The point is that Labour splashed the (borrowed) cash around all and sundry to essentially try and keep themselves in power and now the Tories are working on identifying which of this can be cut. Given we need to cut as much as possible as soon as possible wrong. Every party identified the need to cut once the recession was over but it is the speed of the cuts that is the problem and which has not been replecated in other leading economic countries- just look at the interest payments we are having to fund - I am sure that somewhere amongst the billions a few deserving cases will lose much needed funding but thats inevitable when you are looking at saving hundreds of billions of pounds.

The Film Council to me seemed a bizarre example - isnt there some irony in these multi millionaire actors and directors (no doubt domiciled in the Cayman Islands) complaining that tax payers money wont be available for them to fund their films - Sex Lives of the Potato Men anyone?

As ever there are two sides to any dispute. There are many BA staff including cabin crew who believe that BASSA, the cabin crew section of Unite, badly let down its members. This view was reinforced by the High Court judgement ruling that the first vote for industrial action was invalid. The ruling was just that there had been a technical error in carrying out the ballot. The judgement was not making comment on the rights or wrongs of the intention to strike
The cuts offered by the union were only very short term whilst the airline was looking for permanent savings but offered pay rises to compensate for changes to working practices.
Other staff at BA had already negotiated deals along these lines.

Agreed - and its not "not having a holiday" I object to. It's Unite making me lose the money I've spent on the holiday that really winds me up. I could spend that money on treating my children, or put some to charity, or buying my season ticket to Falmer etc etc etc.Does your travel insurance not cover this then?

I'd bet my mortgage that if the Stewards at the Albion belonged to Unite and went on strike for a season and people on here missed matches because of it then all hell would break lose.

The problem with Unions is that they tend to be run by the braindead who think strike, strike, strike. Instead they should look at ways to cause the company pain and not the customer - work to rule, not completeing paperwork etc. The teaching unions are beginning to realise this but the dinosaurs at Unite and it's equally stupid membership aren't.

There are considerably more unions and union members not going on strike. Indeed, the vast majority of Unite members are not involved in this or the BA strike.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Originally Posted by Westdene Seagull View Post
Agreed - and its not "not having a holiday" I object to. It's Unite making me lose the money I've spent on the holiday that really winds me up. I could spend that money on treating my children, or put some to charity, or buying my season ticket to Falmer etc etc etc.Does your travel insurance not cover this then?

Virtually all travel insurances exclude industrial action and acts of god. So no it does not and there for I hold Unite and it's members responsible if I lose money.

 

[drew]

Virtually all travel insurances exclude industrial action and acts of god. So no it does not and there for I hold Unite and it's members responsible if I lose money.

Suggest you shop around a bit more for your travel cover. There are some that don't pay but equally there are just as many that do. Out of interest, who is your policy with?

 

[matthew]

Pricks

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Suggest you shop around a bit more for your travel cover. There are some that don't pay but equally there are just as many that do. Out of interest, who is your policy with?

Lloyds Travel Insurance. A good 90%+ do not allow for a claim against industrial action. Those that do charge a premium for it.

 

[drew]

Lloyds Travel Insurance. A good 90%+ do not allow for a claim against industrial action. Those that do charge a premium for it.

Not sure you are right there. They exclude strikes, industrial action etc only if it is known about prior to you purchasing the policy.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

The difficult times are due to the recession moron. Yes, labour overspent in some areas but what has cost us all is the gambles made by the banks who are now giving themselves very handsome bonuses. Perhaps you like to ignore that because it does sit comfortably with you right wing views.

Drew, you do really come out with some sanctimonious crap.

There's a real world outside for which this country plays a very small part. Forgetting the banks Labour screwed this country by spending all our money, then borrowing, then selling the family GOLD, then borrowing some more, then creating non jobs which again we have to pay for.

So before bleating about these unions and their righteousness causes. This undoubtedly is purely a political situation that Unite are attempting to create. If you lefties don't watch out they will go on and ruin you beloved Labour party.