[Closed] BA strike spiked !!

lol

£30k a year for waving your arms about demonstrating safety procedures and serving food & drink? What are they complaining about?

😐

When you can't even strike correctly....I think it's time to leave the field.

I wonder if the judge had any Xmas holidays planned.....

A lot of relieved people all round I think. Suits everyone, Union got to look tough and BA can continue to exist for a bit longer at least. The workforce have been able to show how strongly they feel and it hasn't cost them anything.

I think the 'workers' got backed into that by the Union and will be well relieved it's been put off.

12 days? Crazy

£30k a year for waving your arms about demonstrating safety procedures and serving food & drink? What are they complaining about?

not necessarily advocating their salaries but who are you gonna call if the plane has to make an emergency landing / you have a heart attack on board / the drunk passenger you've been tutting about all day decides to try and nut you mid flight?

I think their position of responsibility is greater than just showing folks to their seats and serving drinks. Now as i've never suffered any of the three scenarios outlined above I can't comment on their [u]ability[/u] to deal with said scenarios, but thats another matter.

Can't help thinking any strikers would have to be a bit stupid anyway. Working for a company who lost £400million last year and demanding a payrise sounds pretty short-sighted when you're an over and above the industry average to boot.

I feel for the unions, they must be gutted they can't screw peoples life's in the name of the public interest! 😆

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the strike, dont you find it a bit disturbing that big business or the government is able to influence the courts enough to get its own way?
( its curious that they never seem to rule in favour of workers)
One of the reasons we posties were on strike this year is because the dispute in 2007 was foiled by the courts ruling on the most pathetic of legal technicalities in favour of the government/ Royal Mail.
This then gave RM the idea that they now had a blank cheque to do as they pleased, which created this years action.
This may not be the end of the BA situation.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the strike, dont you find it a bit disturbing that big business or the government is able to influence the courts enough to get its own way?

I really haven't seen anything that suggests that

Why doesn't the union just re-ballot the membership? & this time make sure that they follow the rules
there's no rush is there?

Uplink, having heard a few things too many regarding the situation with my own employer , I'm naturally, maybe a bit too cynical.

davidrussell - Member

not necessarily advocating their salaries but who are you gonna call if the plane has to make an emergency landing / you have a heart attack on board / the drunk passenger you've been tutting about all day decides to try and nut you mid flight?

I think their position of responsibility is greater than just showing folks to their seats and serving drinks. Now as i've never suffered any of the three scenarios outlined above I can't comment on their ability to deal with said scenarios, but thats another matter.

Yeah, O.K. Fair enough.

Now as i've never suffered any of the three scenarios outlined above I can't comment on their ability to deal with said scenarios, but thats another matter.

You need to get out more, try an Aeroflot internal flight 😀

As long as they don't strike on 9 or 23 Jan I don't really care. Not getting to Austria skiing would really piss me off. Not getting back would cost me time and money.

Playing Devil's Advocate for a minute:

not necessarily advocating their salaries but who are you gonna call if the plane has to make an emergency landing / you have a heart attack on board

Emergencies can happen at lots of workplaces - Builders, machine operators etc could have to deal with serious incidents at any time.

the drunk passenger you've been tutting about all day decides to try and nut you mid flight?

I used to work in bars, where dealing with difficult drunks was a daily occurence. I got just over the minimum wage.

I think their position of responsibility is greater than just showing folks to their seats and serving drinks.

Agree with this, but I do think they're in a pretty privileged job and at BA they earn bloody good money! To strike for TWELVE days over Christmas would have been utterly shameful imo.

The error made by the union in the ballot is so glaring that you have to wonder if they knew exactly what they were doing. The only other possible explanation is incompetence.

if BA weren't in such financial dire-straits, i'd go there for a job!! £30k, flights all over the world, 2 days stop overs, 900 hours per year max?

YES PLEASE!!!

not necessarily advocating their salaries but who are you gonna call if the plane has to make an emergency landing / you have a heart attack on board

I've never seen this on BA, but did see it happen on Lufthansa. Early morning flight, bloke on the opposite side of the aisle stands up, takes one step forwards, passes out and goes straight down. Hard. 3 members of cabin crew crowd round, looking down at the passenger. Doing nothing. None of them even crouched down. Eventually one of them mustered sufficient mental capacity to put a call out on the PA system for a doctor. By this point two other passengers had already intervened to actually do something, then a doctor turned up.

It was enough to make you wonder about the level of CC training on some airlines. If BA crew getting paid more means that they're better trained, then I'm happy to keep flying with them (which I do, quite a lot). Having said that, I'm not sure that their union is necessarily acting in the best long-term interests of its members in the way they've gone about things. Hopefully common sense will now prevail.

i'd go there for a job!! £30k, flights all over the world, 2 days stop overs, 900 hours per year max?

YES PLEASE!!!

Given the way that many of them are treated by passengers it's not a job I'd rush to do.

avdave2 - Member
The error made by the union in the ballot is so glaring that you have to wonder if they knew exactly what they were doing. The only other possible explanation is incompetence.

Hmmmm.....

The error made by the union in the ballot is so glaring that you have to wonder if they knew exactly what they were doing. The only other possible explanation is incompetence.

Supposedly they were warned by BA on Friday that there was a problem.

I knew once the courts got involved it wouldnt happen.
Simply be at Status Quo for the workers whilst the union
talk it out.

[i]Emergencies can happen at lots of workplaces - Builders, machine operators etc could have to deal with serious incidents at any time.[/i]

I'm pretty good driver but try as I might I can't get the vehicle to 30,000 feet. Getting to building sites is easy.

[i]I used to work in bars, where dealing with difficult drunks was a daily occurence. I got just over the minimum wage[/i]

I take a guess and say opening the door in a bar and putting someone out is a lot easier than on a 747 in mid air. Also I reckon the Police can get to a bar a lot easier.

She don't wear no pants and she don't wear no tie
Always on the ball, she's always on strike
Struttin' up the aisle, big deal, you get to fly
You ain't nothin' but a waitress in the sky

The decision's legally right but logically insane, since the 1000 invalid votes didn't influence the decision in the slightest. I think, with Globespan going under, the union are probably pretty glad right now, but I hate to see a legitimate vote overruled on such a pathetic technicality. The members overwhelmingly demonstrated their desire to strike, that's undeniable.

(the invalid ballots weren't as ridiculous as some would have you believe, btw, they were all issued to employees who were awaiting redundancy decisions, then made redundant before the final vote- not as some suggest issued to people who'd already left)

£30k a year for waving your arms about demonstrating safety procedures and serving food & drink? What are they complaining about?

I've noticed that there appears to be a constant reference on this forum about BA staff wages, despite the fact that as far as I can figure out, this dispute is about staff cuts and changes to contracts. And despite the fact that £29k doesn't sound like a staggeringly high wage to me.

But then again, I don't resent people who have managed to secure a decent wage from their employer, on the contrary - I think, good luck to them.

Strangely enough though, this preoccupation with salaries doesn't seem to extend to everyone who is paid by BA, people like the BA chief executive - funny that. Because BA's chief executive gets three quarters of a million pounds a year - plus shares. Now [i]that[/i] sounds like a "staggeringly high wage" to me.

Of course some people argue that chief executives of successful companies which make large profits should receive huge rewards. And those same people often argue that chief executives of unsuccessful companies which make large losses should also receive huge rewards. How else can you hope to hang on to them ?

But I can't help thinking that if Willie Walsh was to walk away from his job because he can't be bothered to get out of bed for less than £15K a week, BA would still [i]somehow[/i] manage to carry on operating.

As far as the legal action concerning Unite's members who would be redundant by the time of the strike voting is concerned, it's probably worth remembering how difficult it is in Britain for trade unions to comply with the most repressive anti-trade unions laws in the western world. As I understand it, if an employer discovers that one union member didn't receive their ballot paper, then they can apply to the courts to have the ballot declared void. So it's hardly surprising if a union tries to cover it's arse with the attitude "when in doubt - send them a ballot paper anyway".

It's also worth remembering that, iirc, 92.5% voted in favour of strike action. Now I don't know much about this dispute, but do know that 92.5% in favour of strike is an extraordinarily high figure. And I also know that how extremely difficult it is for British workers to agree to take strike action in the present climate, and in the face of such hostile anti-trade union laws - however justified their grievances might be. So whatever the fine details of this dispute are, it is very clear that much of BA's staff are exceptionally angry with their management - you simply wouldn't have had that result otherwise.

Maybe BA management should be talking to their staff - not the courts ?

^^^what ernie said

very well put, ernie

[quoteAnd despite the fact that £29k doesn't sound like a staggeringly high wage to me.

It's beats £65.00 per week

This is still going to cost BA dear. It seems pretty clear that there will be some action in the future - and who's going to book with them when they know there could be a strike announced for the time of their flight?

And despite the fact that £29k doesn't sound like a staggeringly high wage to me.

It's all relative - surprised the Virgin Atlantic guys don't all offer themselves to BA at bargain rates....

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article6466748.ece

despite the fact that as far as I can figure out, this dispute is about staff cuts and changes to contracts

It's about changes to working practices/conditions which BA states are not contractual. The main one is reducing the number of cabin crew operating on each flight to bring flights out of Heathrow in line with those flying from Gatwick (which have operated on the lower staffing levels for some time).

Although there is a push to reduce numbers of staff BA has indicated that these will be through voluntary redundancies and part-time working. There's also a pay freeze.

My understanding is that BA discussed these changes with the Unions when they were first proposed. BASSA/Unite refused to accept them; other cabin crew said they would accept them. In the absence of any negotiated settlement BA said that they'd introduce them anyway as they were non-contractual changes, at which point BASSA/Unite called for strike action.

BA has also proposed that new cabin crew are employed on different contracts that are more representative of the current market, rather then the legacy contracts and conditions enjoyed by existing members of cabin crew.

And despite the fact that £29k doesn't sound like a staggeringly high wage to me.

[b]It's all relative[/b]

Yes of course it is.

And yes, relative to wages in, say, Ethiopia, £29K (including allowances) would indeed be a staggeringly high wage. But in relation to British wages, then no - it isn't staggeringly high.

Now I don't know what the average wage for [i]shift workers[/i] in Britain is, but the general average wage is about £25k.

So what BA cabin staff receive represents a good wage above average. But not one which is "staggeringly high", so I don't see the need for the constant references to it. I certainly don't have a problem with it.

Of course on the other hand, what BA pays it chief executive, [i]can indeed[/i] be fairly described as "staggeringly high" - even by British standards. It is in fact, about 30 times the average UK wage - and yet bizarrely, no one seems to want to mention it ...... when talking about the two sides of this dispute.

As far as what Virgin Atlantic pays it's cabin staff is concerned, I consider £270 per week (including allowances) to be a poor wage. And yes, [i]"relative"[/i] to UK wages - it is significantly below the average UK wage. I think there is probably a case for a substantial increase in Virgin Atlantic cabin staff wages, especially as Virgin Atlantic double their profits this year - despite the global recession. Maybe Virgin Atlantic could have maintained their profit at it's previously healthy level, and instead paid their staff more ?

BTW, I'm not entirely sure how Virgin Atlantic gets away with paying such low wages. I've never flown with them - do they employ a lot of Lithuanians and Poles ? Obviously that would help to explain quite a bit, as they would see their wages as "relatively" reasonable, in relation to what they might earn in their home country. I certainly wouldn't want to see BA staff on that sort of wage - well not whilst the chief executive is getting three quarters of a million pounds a year anyway.

.

It's about changes to working practices/conditions which BA states are not contractual.

So these [i]changes[/i] are not [i]contractual[/i] then ? BA can carry out changes to working practices and conditions under the existing contracts ? There's nothing [i]wrong[/i] with the "old" contracts then ?

And yet, quote : [i]"BA has also proposed that new cabin crew are employed on different contracts"[/i]

Now I might missing something here - but something, doesn't appear to be stacking up..... 😕

Surly striking (or trying to strike) in a sector where the public can make a choice and go else where is shooting yourself in the foot.

We have just (today) book our honeymoon flights. I have paid extra NOT to fly with BA. If other people decide not to fly BA then I can't see BA increasing wages/and or improving conditions - more like cutting flights and jobs.

Tom - Member
Surly striking (or trying to strike) in a sector where the public can make a choice and go else where is shooting yourself in the foot.

British Leyland. A valid case in point.

British Leyland. A valid case in point.

Yep - I was going to bring up the Rover. Was in Longbridge today - the factory is long gone

29K to be a trolley dolly! That's a grand more than I'll be on next April.

As far as I can tell the BA CEO's salary doesn't seem particularly high and very possibly not even in the top quartile for UK FTSE 100 companies?

Just look at the CEO salaries of all the 'high street brands' Tescos, Vodafone, Barclays - all are well over £1m pa with very generous cash and share bonuses.

Relativity works at all levels. Yes, to me £750k is a lot of money, and probably more than I will earn in my remaining years until retirement, but in the context of being a CEO for a blue chip like BA probably only "fair to middling"

As far as I can tell the BA CEO's salary doesn't seem particularly high and very possibly not even in the top quartile for UK FTSE 100 companies?

How does a salary not making it into "the top quartile for UK FTSE 100 companies" mean that it isn't very high ? More than 30 times the average wage is a very high salary. And I'm not really bothered if Willie Walsh feels poor in the presence of the chief executive of Tesco. As, someone earning £750,000 can hardly claim to be hard done by - they are after all, charged exactly the same for products and services as everyone else, despite the fact that they earn in 12 months, what the average person earns in 30 years.

Just look at the CEO salaries of all the 'high street brands' Tescos, Vodafone, Barclays

Why ?

Tesco, Vodafone, and Barclays profits run into the £billions (£3-11billion in fact) and as far as I am aware, BA have never made a £billion profit. Do you not believe in performance related pay then ? Or do you ....... but only when applied to people on average pay ?

I've always been told that the mega-rich justify their huge wealth on the grounds that they take huge risks - it's a, "the winner takes all" society. Seems to me that this might not be entirely true, and all that really counts is power and privilege - it's a "win win" situation..... even for the "losers". In fact, it would appear that there are no risks involved at all - well apart from the risk of becoming wealthy of course. Funny that.