Unite PRICKS

[drew]

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.

Well, we do play a huge part in the real world when it comes to financial services. As I said previously, prior to the Bank induced credit crunch, labour spending was a smaller percentage of GDP than when they came into power. I suppose they could have done what Cameron wanted and not intervened and we might not now have the banking sector that industry needs. Yes, labour sold the family gold but the previous administration sold the family silver and we are no better off because of that.

Still, doesn't matter what anyone says, if the media say it's political then it must be right. As for being sanctimonious, perhaps you should direct that at the clowns that, because of a couple of strikes, label all unions as communist infiltrators and compare them to the dark days of the 70s when they genuinely felt they could govern the country. I readily accept that there are some unions that have a bigger agenda that is not in our interest. However, I don't believe that applies in this case, or for that matte the BA strikes where, from one perspective, it was clear that it was Walsh's aim to break the union at any cost. Still, you are entitled to your version.

 

[Eggmundo]

Not forgetting the Indians will work for the equivalent of 75p per hour!

To start with yes..

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

BAA Firefighters and Security Staff are the bulk of those striking. Just so you are fully aware of the appalling wages they are paid...

BAA Firefighter - Starting pay for a trainee fire-fighter is £23,125 & this rises to £25,975 once on the run. To this you can add about £3500 shift pay. Overtime will substantially increase this. Add to that over 200 hours annual leave (working hours, that is, not based on a 24 hour day) which goes up after 8 years service and you are not on a bad screw.

BAA Security - £18,219 basic + shift allowance about another £2,000 PA, plus overtime. The Mum of one of my students moved into this role at Southampton and she reckons she has never had it so good with the amount of overtime she pulls.

Breadline stuff huh?

Oh yes, the Scottish prick at the head of Unite - £115K and his goal in life is to move to Cuba...his stooge has racked up in the region of 45 nights at 5* hotels in London so that he can carry out his Union duties. Not a bad job if you can get it!

Wonder if they got a bonus for almost meeting targets - and it costs £130 a year to belong to Unite. Falling membership following the shambles of the BA negotiations they need to justify the subs with a show of strength.

 

[The Wizard]

f***ing PRICKS. (And C*NTS)

 

[Castello]

BAA Firefighters and Security Staff are the bulk of those striking. Just so you are fully aware of the appalling wages they are paid...

BAA Firefighter - Starting pay for a trainee fire-fighter is £23,125 & this rises to £25,975 once on the run. To this you can add about £3500 shift pay. Overtime will substantially increase this. Add to that over 200 hours annual leave (working hours, that is, not based on a 24 hour day) which goes up after 8 years service and you are not on a bad screw.

BAA Security - £18,219 basic + shift allowance about another £2,000 PA, plus overtime. The Mum of one of my students moved into this role at Southampton and she reckons she has never had it so good with the amount of overtime she pulls.

Breadline stuff huh?

Oh yes, the Scottish prick at the head of Unite - £115K and his goal in life is to move to Cuba...his stooge has racked up in the region of 45 nights at 5* hotels in London so that he can carry out his Union duties. Not a bad job if you can get it!

Wonder if they got a bonus for almost meeting targets - and it costs £130 a year to belong to Unite. Falling membership following the shambles of the BA negotiations they need to justify the subs with a show of strength.

the joint General secretaries of unite are Derek Simpson who is from sheffield.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Simpson_%28trade_unionist%29

and Tony Woodley who is from merseyside.
Tony Woodley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Unite Officer leading the BA workers and candidate for the shortly to be elected new general secretary is Len Mccluskey who is from Liverpool. ( he doesnt yet have wikipedia entry)

I dont know which scottish prick you are referring to , but hes not the head of Unite.

To be frank I suspect you and I would agree that there are a number of assholes inside the trade union movement, who would sell their members out for a seat in the house of lords or even just a junket to (name your country). Wherever you find a large organisation with little scrutiny on how money is spent, you will find parasites.

However within both Unite and the wider Trade Union movement you will find a large number of people (some of whom are well paid for it, most of whom get nothing but abuse for it) who are and have been committed to improving living standards for working people. Its just as in most walks of life, the dross attract the most attention.

I prefer to focus on the positive and good Trade Unions do for their members.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

the joint General secretaries of unite are Derek Simpson who is from sheffield.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Simpson_%28trade_unionist%29

and Tony Woodley who is from merseyside.
Tony Woodley - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Unite Officer leading the BA workers and candidate for the shortly to be elected new general secretary is Len Mccluskey who is from Liverpool. ( he doesnt yet have wikipedia entry)

I dont know which scottish prick you are referring to , but hes not the head of Unite.

To be frank I suspect you and I would agree that there are a number of assholes inside the trade union movement, who would sell their members out for a seat in the house of lords or even just a junket to (name your country). Wherever you find a large organisation with little scrutiny on how money is spent, you will find parasites.

However within both Unite and the wider Trade Union movement you will find a large number of people (some of whom are well paid for it, most of whom get nothing but abuse for it) who are and have been committed to improving living standards for working people. Its just as in most walks of life, the dross attract the most attention.

I prefer to focus on the positive and good Trade Unions do for their members.

Apologies - Brian Boyd was the one I meant, the head of the Civil Aviation wing. It's the concept of being deliberately awkward (hence the Awkward Squad organisation of Union Leaders) which causes me issues. They should exist to support and further the progress of their members, but not to the point where their egos take over. TV appearances seem to mean more than doing what their members want - and when you look at the current financial climate, the Fire and Security staff are not badly paid, they have jobs, they need to do what the rest of us do at the moment and just get on with it. It's not comfortable, but by affecting directly the holiday plans of the people that they would like to support them, they are shooting themselves in the foot. It's not even a common sense approach to winning.

 

[bhaexpress]

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.

If anybody doesn't have the facts it's you. For a start BA doesn't operate charters out of Heathrow which rather negates the drunken holiday makers statement. On the rare occasions they do get a drunk on a Heathrow flight it normally makes the press. Mind you that happens with all airlines as well as any other form of transport. The fact is that BA staff at Heathrow get paid better than even their colleagues at other airports but their colleagues are not on strike. Factor in that BA are losing lost of money due to the recession and yet these idiots still want a pay rise.

Those are the facts. Oh, I spent nearly ten years working for an rival airline so I do know a lot of people who are still the industry and even the BA people (who are Gatwick based) agree with me.

 

[The Oldman]

Drew. You may find it interesting to read the court judgements in Unite v BA. In the February hearing when Unite lost their appeal, Sir Christopher Holland (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court) made many comments on how both BA and the unions had conducted themselves. For example:

"I have taken into account, first, the dire financial situation of BA as at the 6th October. As to this, I see nothing material in how that situation came to arise, the now undisputed fact is that BA was then in a very serious financial state, such that management reasonably had urgently to do something (and had to be seen to do something) in the interests of the Company, its employees and its financial backers. I have further taken into account the now undisputed fact that as at the 6th October negotiations with the Union had come to a halt, notwithstanding the efforts of ACAS, and were unlikely to restart unless and until the internal factions of Unite had resolved their differences so as to form a negotiating team. "

You may wish to read the full judgement here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/302.html

To claim that BA was out to destroy the union is not borne out by the facts quoted here and given that the airline and other unions had settled new deals this would suggest that BA was not anti union. Looking at how Bassa/Unite have acted since the court cases it would seem that all is not well in their internal workings and as a result they have lost the confidence of many Heathrow Cabin Crew.

 

[Gazwag]

Originally Posted by Westdene Seagull
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.

Originally Posted by Drew
Does your travel insurance not cover this then?

What a typical comment from a union member, lets pass the buck to somebody else as I don't give a toss

An insurance policy may not cover flight cancellation due to pricks on strike, what about the inconvienance to employers, taxi drivers who would have lost airport fares, the disappointment to kids who would have been looking forward to their summer holiday for months.

You really don't care about anybody but yourself and neither do those union leaders.

You continue to show what a selfish twat you are

 

[drew]

Drew. You may find it interesting to read the court judgements in Unite v BA. In the February hearing when Unite lost their appeal, Sir Christopher Holland (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court) made many comments on how both BA and the unions had conducted themselves. For example:

"I have taken into account, first, the dire financial situation of BA as at the 6th October. As to this, I see nothing material in how that situation came to arise, the now undisputed fact is that BA was then in a very serious financial state, such that management reasonably had urgently to do something (and had to be seen to do something) in the interests of the Company, its employees and its financial backers. I have further taken into account the now undisputed fact that as at the 6th October negotiations with the Union had come to a halt, notwithstanding the efforts of ACAS, and were unlikely to restart unless and until the internal factions of Unite had resolved their differences so as to form a negotiating team. "

You may wish to read the full judgement here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/302.html

To claim that BA was out to destroy the union is not borne out by the facts quoted here and given that the airline and other unions had settled new deals this would suggest that BA was not anti union. Looking at how Bassa/Unite have acted since the court cases it would seem that all is not well in their internal workings and as a result they have lost the confidence of many Heathrow Cabin Crew.

Thanks for that, my what an interesting read. Firstly, there is of course no written record that Walsh has stated he is out to crush the union so it wouldn't appear in the judgement. So I accept that is an opinion from the union perspective.

As to the union not representing the members, that seems to relate to the spat involving BASSA. According to the Sunday Times, Tony Woodley was on the brink of signing an agreement with BA but was prevented from doing so by BASSA members who would therefore seem to be the more militant?

 

[drew]

What a typical comment from a union member, lets pass the buck to somebody else as I don't give a toss

An insurance policy may not cover flight cancellation due to pricks on strike, what about the inconvienance to employers, taxi drivers who would have lost airport fares, the disappointment to kids who would have been looking forward to their summer holiday for months.

You really don't care about anybody but yourself and neither do those union leaders.

You continue to show what a selfish twat you are

You really are a dick aren't you. They guy complains about losing money and I suggest he could check his policy. Most will cover it provided the policy was purchased prior to news of the ballot. I might be able to save him some money and I might not, either way, I very much doubt me suggesting he checks his insurance is going change his views on unions.

You with your generalisations about union leaders show your complete and utter ignorance. Still, I suspect you have a very blissful life.

 

[fcportaloo]

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.

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) 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.

It's nothing to do with the 1960's or present day particularly. If employees/unions don't stand up for their rights, who else will do. The rights that you say are enshrined in UK and European law could soon be removed - esp at the moment. There seem to be no sacred cows for this coalition

 

[Gazwag]

You really are a dick aren't you.

Typical comment from a union cnt, couldn't care less about the knock on effect to innocent business people who will suffer if most of the uk airports close during a strike. Everythings ok insurance companies will pay up. Well guess what everybodies premiums will increase next year to pay for it. Oh but union people cannot see that far.

And I do know about certain unions and the suffering they caused to my family in the 70's because they offer no choice to its members.

 

[drew]

Typical comment from a union cnt, couldn't care less about the knock on effect to innocent business people who will suffer if most of the uk airports close during a strike. Everythings ok insurance companies will pay up. Well guess what everybodies premiums will increase next year to pay for it. Oh but union people cannot see that far.

And I do know about certain unions and the suffering they caused to my family in the 70's because they offer no choice to its members.

So your view is tarnished by personal experience. Doesn't that make you the selfish one then?

Unions were led by meglamaniacs in the 70s with the likes of Jack Jones, Arthur Scargill et al. No one, including me would want their ilk to return but unions provide a service to their members. Not all unions are for strikes either. Take the RCN, they don't strike and up until the last administration they probably had as good reason as many other to withdraw their labour but didn't.

By the way, it's what you buy insurance for or don't you understand the concept.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

By the way, it's what you buy insurance for or don't you understand the concept.

I notice you avoid his valid question - why the hell should the insurers pick up the tab for a strike ? The Unions should take out insurance that covers third party costs of a strike - at least that way it's the Union that pays towards it NOT the innocent public.

 

[drew]

I notice you avoid his valid question - why the hell should the insurers pick up the tab for a strike ? The Unions should take out insurance that covers third party costs of a strike - at least that way it's the Union that pays towards it NOT the innocent public.

For exactly the same reason that if you are a dipshit and cause damage to your car and you have fully comp insurance then you can claim for the cost of repairs. You would be an even bigger dipshit if you had fully comp but didn't claim on the principle that you cause the damage so you should pay, even if the car is a write off!!! And for argument's sake, lets say we are talking about damage running into several thousand pounds.

Insurance is a contract. If the event is covered under the terms of the contract then you can make a claim. If you don't want to then don't but that then begs the question why you take out insurance in the first place if not to make a claim when you are entitled.

At the end of the day, making a claim doesn't mean you have to change your views on unions or that it suggests you support the action the union may or may not take.

So, as you can probably gather, I don't think it is a valid question.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

For exactly the same reason that if you are a dipshit and cause damage to your car and you have fully comp insurance then you can claim for the cost of repairs. You would be an even bigger dipshit if you had fully comp but didn't claim on the principle that you cause the damage so you should pay, even if the car is a write off!!! And for argument's sake, lets say we are talking about damage running into several thousand pounds.

Insurance is a contract. If the event is covered under the terms of the contract then you can make a claim. If you don't want to then don't but that then begs the question why you take out insurance in the first place if not to make a claim when you are entitled.

At the end of the day, making a claim doesn't mean you have to change your views on unions or that it suggests you support the action the union may or may not take.

So, as you can probably gather, I don't think it is a valid question.

You'd claim on your car because it would be an ACCIDENT ( unless of course you did it on purpose and then they wouldn't pay out ).

A strike is not an accident, it's an action taken by a union and it's members and it should THEM that are responsible for the extra costs NOT the insurers.

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

For exactly the same reason that if you are a dipshit and cause damage to your car and you have fully comp insurance then you can claim for the cost of repairs. You would be an even bigger dipshit if you had fully comp but didn't claim on the principle that you cause the damage so you should pay, even if the car is a write off!!! And for argument's sake, lets say we are talking about damage running into several thousand pounds.

Insurance is a contract. If the event is covered under the terms of the contract then you can make a claim. If you don't want to then don't but that then begs the question why you take out insurance in the first place if not to make a claim when you are entitled.

At the end of the day, making a claim doesn't mean you have to change your views on unions or that it suggests you support the action the union may or may not take.

So, as you can probably gather, I don't think it is a valid question.

That doesn't make sense to me. The 2 analogies are completely different. Most people take out insurance on their hols - mainly to cover medical but these holiday insurances tend to be a cover all eventualities. What the OP was questioning was why you think it's acceptable that holiday makers have to pay for industrial disputes (Through higher ins premiums) that are nothing to do with them and are not their fault (blowing away your analogy of the dickhead with full comp who, quite clearly, is the culpable person here).

I think it's a perfectly valid question.

And a further point to one of your many posts on this subject - I think most people out in the public think that Bob Crow's ego is as big as Scargill's. I'd go as far as to say that Bob Crow sees himself at the vanguard of a fight against this Government and has a bigger agenda to try and bring it down.

I don't mean to be rude but you come across as quite indifferent to how this will affect the general public. I, for one, am getting seriously peed off with seeing Crow calling for strikes left, right and centre and then give a mealy mouthed apology to us, the people that suffer.

 

[drew]

You'd claim on your car because it would be an ACCIDENT ( unless of course you did it on purpose and then they wouldn't pay out ).

A strike is not an accident, it's an action taken by a union and it's members and it should THEM that are responsible for the extra costs NOT the insurers.

Define accident then? To me an accident is when someone hits you and you have done nothing wrong. If you are at fault then it is your own carelessness.

That doesn't make sense to me. The 2 analogies are completely different. Most people take out insurance on their hols - mainly to cover medical but these holiday insurances tend to be a cover all eventualities. What the OP was questioning was why you think it's acceptable that holiday makers have to pay for industrial disputes (Through higher ins premiums) that are nothing to do with them and are not their fault (blowing away your analogy of the dickhead with full comp who, quite clearly, is the culpable person here).

I think it's a perfectly valid question.

And a further point to one of your many posts on this subject - I think most people out in the public think that Bob Crow's ego is as big as Scargill's. I'd go as far as to say that Bob Crow sees himself at the vanguard of a fight against this Government and has a bigger agenda to try and bring it down.

I don't mean to be rude but you come across as quite indifferent to how this will affect the general public. I, for one, am getting seriously peed off with seeing Crow calling for strikes left, right and centre and then give a mealy mouthed apology to us, the people that suffer.

We could argue till we are blue in the teeth but to throw another analogy into the mix, do you think it fair that airlines should have to pay for peoples accommodation and expenses when they are stranded due to an ash cloud that is not their responsibility?

As for Crow, couldn't agree more. However, his ilk are thankfully in the minority rather than in the 70s when they were in the majority.

 

[Horsham Gull]

Breaking news

Airports strike threat called off after new pay offer
breaking news

The threat of a strike by workers at six UK airports has been called off after a new pay offer was tabled.

The Unite union and the airports' operator BAA agreed a "basis for settlement" on Monday evening.

A strike was called at the airports including Heathrow, Stansted, Edinburgh and Aberdeen after engineers and other ground staff rejected a pay deal.

Agreement to end the strike threat came after nine hours of talks, but no details of the new offer were released.