BA Strike [Merged]

[Icy Gull]

I am genuinely surprised by the number of people on this thread who seem to be of the general view that if you are about to be shafted by your employer, you should just bend over and drop your trousers. Grow a spine, it might be you tomorrow.

.

So how exactly are they being shafted, please expand?

 

[VeronaSeagull]

I am genuinely surprised by the number of people on this thread who seem to be of the general view that if you are about to be shafted by your employer, you should just bend over and drop your trousers. Grow a spine, it might be you tomorrow.

The staff have every right to use whatever means are at their disposal to protect their pay and conditions, and how anyone's sympathies can be with an odious little thug like Walsh is totally beyond me.

And if I was an employment lawyer, I'd be licking my lips at the prospect of taking him on over the removal of those perks. I'm sure they would fall into established 'custom and practice'. But as Simster says, the bullying may well work, serve its purpose and get them back.

A lot of what BA is trying to do though is remove old SPanish practices from contracts, I remember speaking to an ex member of BA management at Gatwick (he took voluntary redundancy when they cut two thirds of middle management last year.....yes other areas have been hit harder than cabin crew) that if a crew has to overnight in Europe somewhere that BA ends up paying for 5 breakfasts.....one at the hotel, two at the airport (one in staff canteen or one in main outlet to give choice) and two on board the flight....this is a lay over from old contracts but gives an example of where cuts can (and are being made)....this cabin crew reduction is just bringing BA in line with the industry standard and therefore removing unnecessary costs.

I really don't think striking when the airline is losing money hand over fist is a viable option as it may force BA to go bust. They can not receive money from the government as this would breach EU competition rules. I also think striking when there are thousands who would happily have your job at the reduced terms is also invalid.

 

[Simster]

I am genuinely surprised by the number of people on this thread who seem to be of the general view that if you are about to be shafted by your employer, you should just bend over and drop your trousers. Grow a spine, it might be you tomorrow.

I think you'd have a point if it wasn't for the fact that working conditions weren't already way in excess of the standard for that industry.

And lets not forget what they're striking over - the reduction of cabin crew from 14 to 13 on long haul flights. That amounts to, what, an additional 20 minutes work maybe? For a firm that losing money hand over fist. For a working shift that is rewarded with excellent pay, generous expenses, and interesting locations.

 

[Icy Gull]

nd lets not forget what they're striking over - the reduction of cabin crew from 14 to 13 on long haul flights. That amounts to, what, an additional 20 minutes work maybe? .

I think that particular gripe has more to do with the fact that the head cabin crew honcho who previously delegated, having to actually serve people

 

[Easy 10]

I am genuinely surprised by the number of people on this thread who seem to be of the general view that if you are about to be shafted by your employer, you should just bend over and drop your trousers. Grow a spine, it might be you tomorrow.

BA as a business is haemorraging money in a hugely competitive industry that, in the current financial climate, is struggling to survive. Airlines have been going bust all obver the shop. BA are trying to introduce cost-cutting measures so they can continue to exist and operate as a business - BA staff are damn lucky there arn't wholesale redundencies being made to try to cut back on costs, like there has been across the rest of the entire economy.

Unite and the strikers seem to think they are living in a different world to the rest of us. They need a reality check.

 

[Uncle C]

BA as a business is haemorraging money in a hugely competitive industry that, in the current financial climate, is struggling to survive. Airlines have been going bust all obver the shop. BA are trying to introduce cost-cutting measures so they can continue to exist and operate as a business - BA staff are damn lucky there arn't wholesale redundencies being made to try to cut back on costs, like there has been across the rest of the entire economy.

Unite and the strikers seem to think they are living in a different world to the rest of us. They need a reality check.

Yep, I heard the other day they are only fighting for their 'rights'. What 'rights'?

 

[User removed 4]

I think you'd have a point if it wasn't for the fact that working conditions weren't already way in excess of the standard for that industry.

And lets not forget what they're striking over - the reduction of cabin crew from 14 to 13 on long haul flights. That amounts to, what, an additional 20 minutes work maybe? For a firm that losing money hand over fist. For a working shift that is rewarded with excellent pay, generous expenses, and interesting locations.

Perhaps the consensus should be that BA staff are on a fair package for what they do, and staff who work for other airlines are the ones being shafted ? and i doubt the gripe about cutting the number of cabin crew from 14 to 13 is about extra work, its probably about jobs being lost, people shouldnt just condemn strikers out of hand because its de rigeur to do so these days.

 

[Uncle C]

Perhaps the consensus should be that BA staff are on a fair package for what they do, and staff who work for other airlines are the ones being shafted ?

Its called market forces and reality.

 

[Tooting Gull]

So how exactly are they being shafted, please expand?

I doubt you actually want to know. But in addition to everything relevant already on this thread which I assume you've read, rampant cost-cutting is stopping people actually doing their jobs properly, and lower salary scales are making it hard for staff to keep their heads above water. If you are affected, that puts you under huge pressure and you would protest.

BA have one of the greatest spin machines of all time, and as we know it has been responsible for some very nasty stuff in the past. These figures of £50,000 salaries being pumped out are pure BS, and totally unrepresentative of what most staff earn. Maybe a handful of long-servers out of thousands.

They're hardly militant. First time for 13 years? And this is not exactly a first resort, Walsh won't negotiate. Isn't he on record as saying something like "a reasonable man never wins a negotiation". You can't deal with egomaniac lunatics like that, and it would appear he has provoked the strike.

 

[Easy 10]

I doubt you actually want to know. But in addition to everything relevant already on this thread which I assume you've read, rampant cost-cutting is stopping people actually doing their jobs properly, and lower salary scales are making it hard for staff to keep their heads above water. If you are affected, that puts you under huge pressure and you would protest.

The lower salary scales are, as I understand it, for NEW employees to BA, not exisiting staff.

And as for the cost-cutting stopping them doing their jobs properly - from what I've read and heard on the news, its only bringing them closer in line with other airline practices. And even if it wasn't, we're in a bloomin RECESSION. Sacrifices have to be made, people have to be prepared to crack on and deal with it.

I'm currently on a 2 year pay freeze, and following redundencies here I've also have to take on other tasks that wern't previously my remit. Its a fact of life, the company either does something about it, or goes under. I've probably got just as much "right" to strike as the trolly dollys, but frankly, I'm just grateful to still be in a job.

 

[Icy Gull]

I doubt you actually want to know., and lower salary scales are making it hard for staff to keep their heads above water. If you are affected, that puts you under huge pressure and you would protest.

.

So you are saying that staff are being asked to take pay cuts? I was under the impression that that would relate to new staff at LHR and that LGW staff had accepted the cut of long haul cabin crew. If you are talking about hardships for new staff, well maybe they should look around and see if they can do better elsewhere if they don't like the offer?

I am genuinely interested to know what hardships are being thrust on BA staff because I haven't seen or heard anything that would make me think that they are being remotely shafted, as you put it. They are being asked to help make savings on an airline losing millions every quarter. Keep up what they are doing and they won't even have jobs

I work with BA and I have to say I'm not big fan of the way they do business or Willie Walsh or many of his predecessors but I cannot accept that the cabin crew are justified in striking.

 

[Tooting Gull]

I also think there has been some gross misrepresentation of what these people actually earn. You'd think they were millionaires.

The average (£29k?) is boosted by long-servers under old-style contracts, in a very similar way to the situation currently in newspapers.

Everyone who has started more recently has nothing like that sort of contract. I understand most BA cabin crew are on about £12-14,000 basic, plus £6-8,000 allowances. For a very disruptive working schedule, anti-social hours, Bank Holidays, weekends, etc, is that - £18-22,000 - outrageous? I bet there are plenty on here who wouldn't get out of bed for that.

 

[daveinprague]

Is BA's dire financial position due to the workers or the management?

 

[Easy 10]

I also think there has been some gross misrepresentation of what these people actually earn. You'd think they were millionaires.

The average (£29k?) is boosted by long-servers under old-style contracts, in a very similar way to the situation currently in newspapers.

Everyone who has started more recently has nothing like that sort of contract. I understand most BA cabin crew are on about £12-14,000 basic, plus £6-8,000 allowances. For a very disruptive working schedule, anti-social hours, Bank Holidays, weekends, etc, is that - £18-22,000 - outrageous? I bet there are plenty on here who wouldn't get out of bed for that.

Nobody is holding a gun to their head to make them take up a career at BA though, are they. They don't like the wage, the hours, the schedules, (the travel ?)then don't become a trolly dolly.

Simples.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I doubt you actually want to know. But in addition to everything relevant already on this thread which I assume you've read, rampant cost-cutting is stopping people actually doing their jobs properly, and lower salary scales are making it hard for staff to keep their heads above water. If you are affected, that puts you under huge pressure and you would protest.

BA have one of the greatest spin machines of all time, and as we know it has been responsible for some very nasty stuff in the past. These figures of £50,000 salaries being pumped out are pure BS, and totally unrepresentative of what most staff earn. Maybe a handful of long-servers out of thousands.

They're hardly militant. First time for 13 years? And this is not exactly a first resort, Walsh won't negotiate. Isn't he on record as saying something like "a reasonable man never wins a negotiation". You can't deal with egomaniac lunatics like that, and it would appear he has provoked the strike.

Well said.

 

[bullshit detector]

The lower salary scales are, as I understand it, for NEW employees to BA, not exisiting staff.

And as for the cost-cutting stopping them doing their jobs properly - from what I've read and heard on the news, its only bringing them closer in line with other airline practices. And even if it wasn't, we're in a bloomin RECESSION. Sacrifices have to be made, people have to be prepared to crack on and deal with it.

I'm currently on a 2 year pay freeze, and following redundencies here I've also have to take on other tasks that wern't previously my remit. Its a fact of life, the company either does something about it, or goes under. I've probably got just as much "right" to strike as the trolly dollys, but frankly, I'm just grateful to still be in a job.

doff cap, grovel grovel, alright guvnor, not for the likes of us, born to rule,
management's right to manage, lucky to have a job, grovel, whine..
BOLLOCKS! SACK the bosses. Sack the bankers. NATIONALISE BA!
Just think if we'd all said 'That Archer, he did nothing illegal, owner's right to own, that's the free market...'

 

[User removed 4]

I doubt you actually want to know. But in addition to everything relevant already on this thread which I assume you've read, rampant cost-cutting is stopping people actually doing their jobs properly, and lower salary scales are making it hard for staff to keep their heads above water. If you are affected, that puts you under huge pressure and you would protest.

BA have one of the greatest spin machines of all time, and as we know it has been responsible for some very nasty stuff in the past. These figures of £50,000 salaries being pumped out are pure BS, and totally unrepresentative of what most staff earn. Maybe a handful of long-servers out of thousands.

They're hardly militant. First time for 13 years? And this is not exactly a first resort, Walsh won't negotiate. Isn't he on record as saying something like "a reasonable man never wins a negotiation". You can't deal with egomaniac lunatics like that, and it would appear he has provoked the strike.

Good post.

 

[Simster]

I also think there has been some gross misrepresentation of what these people actually earn. You'd think they were millionaires.

Really? All I'm seeing is people debating the extent of their travel priveleges. Nobody is saying they earn a fortune although on average they earn FAR more than the industry average.

The average (£29k?) is boosted by long-servers under old-style contracts, in a very similar way to the situation currently in newspapers.

Everyone who has started more recently has nothing like that sort of contract. I understand most BA cabin crew are on about £12-14,000 basic, plus £6-8,000 allowances. For a very disruptive working schedule, anti-social hours, Bank Holidays, weekends, etc, is that - £18-22,000 - outrageous? I bet there are plenty on here who wouldn't get out of bed for that.

But isn't this irrelevent? Ultimately, nobody put a gun to their heads and forced them to work for whatever salaries they do earn. It's not like they were brought in on an agreed amount and told my management to accept half the amount a few months later.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

As far as reducing numbers on long haul, Gatwick Crews have already accepted this (15 to 14) which now brings them on a par with Air France, KLM and American Airlines etc for Transatlantic Flights.

It does NOT affect their beaks (or indeed safety)

I was informed by BA stewardess out of Gatwick that the same transatlantic flight out of Heathrow is 15 whereas out of gatwick it is 10 and has always been 10. Too say that she thinks the Heathrow staff are taking the p**s is an understatement. She is not in the union for this very reason hence she has worked over the strike ...

 

[Easy 10]

doff cap, grovel grovel, alright guvnor, not for the likes of us, born to rule,
management's right to manage, lucky to have a job, grovel, whine..
BOLLOCKS! SACK the bosses. Sack the bankers. NATIONALISE BA!
Just think if we'd all said 'That Archer, he did nothing illegal, owner's right to own, that's the free market...'

Not quite sure how Archer has weaved his way into this thread tbh.

But the point is, if a business doesn't cut its cloth, then sooner or later it'll go bust and EVERYONE loses. Perhaps management at BA have been autocratic in the manner of how they've introduced these changes - perhaps staff wern't fully consulted first, which is one of the main bones of contention. It probably could have been handled better. But one thing is clear - BA, much like many other airlines, has been losing millions, so quite clearly something had to be done. If BA staff want to exist in a bubble, as though nothing going on in the world economy can ever affect them, then they're in for a shock.

Well, they're probably already getting one.