To really have no respect for people who strike..

[stealthpony]

...when it has the potential to cause so much public disruption?

I don't give a bollock what they're striking about. I've had a weekend away planned for months. Imagine if it's your wedding abroad or a funeral or a holiday you'd worked fucking hard at on minimum wage all year to get? It could be for any reason but striking airport staff will stop all of your plans and you go nowhere.

AIBU to think that THEY are the unreasonable ones or can someone please explain to me why I should be on their side?

I might be miffed, but that wouldn't change my thinking whatsoever.

Well Bonnie - do you think they have a 'valid' reason to strike; if so, please enlighten me!

well let's hope they get what they want and fast and we can all carry on as normal.

Agree HMC - the causes of this particular strike seem a bit iffy to me. But in principle I totally defend the right to withdraw labour. And yes I'd be a bit miffed if it was my hols up the swannee but that doesn't alter the importance of the right to strike.

I don't know enough about it, I don't live in the UK. But in general strikers generally don't do it unless they have a good reason.

Firstly I would like to add my voice to the posters pointing out that it is BAA (not BA) employees who have voted to go on strike. However, the employees from both companies who have been troublesome this year are all members of the UNITE union.

The aviation industry is struggling. There has been a global recession leading to a reduction in the number of passengers - in particular the premium rate passengers who bring so much of the profit in, as well as massive increases in the cost of both fuel and security. The pound dropped to it's lowest ever rate against the Euro. Combined with this the last decade has seen the steady erosion of the price of airline tickets, to the point where a large proportion of the population are genuinely outraged that they cannot purchase a ticket on a flight for 50p. Top that all off with the spectacularly unexpected massive volcanic eruption that closed Northern European airspace for longer than any other situation since WW2.

Many airline and airport workers have already taken significant pay cuts - I have already taken a cut that amounts to over 2000GBP a year, which is really not very nice but my union (with the backing of it's members) negotiated it with my company as my group of workers understands the situation aviation is dealing with. Many other employee groups have also agreed pay cuts or freezes as a temporary measure in an unprecedented situation too.

I am all for the power of the unions to negotiate good working terms and conditions for their members, but in the case of UNITE they appear to be a union who is happy to steer their members directly into the course of conflict. There are many complex issues involved when a union decides to strike, and they are not always clear to the average man or woman in the street. On the one hand, there SHOULD be a right for unions to withhold labour - it is part of the law of this country. Otoh, it is also not unreasonable for the OP to feel aggrieved that she is going to be dragged unwillingly into a dispute that is nothing to do with her and will spoil something that she has worked for herself and been looking forward to for a long time. What this highlights is that there is no clear-cut right or wrong in this kind of scenario.

From my own personal POV, I know quite a few of the facts (but not all by a long way) regarding the BAA strike, and think their strike is unreasonable and they are just one more group of unfortunate employees being led into an untenable situation by blundering union officials with a completely overblown sense of their own self importance. UNITE's 'leadership' of the BA cabin crew over the last 12 months has NOT led to any kind of improvement for them at all - in fact, in many ways they are significantly worse off as a group. Were UNITE a bit more adult in their communications with their members' employers it is likely that strikes would be unnecessary.

Good post Backinthebox

In this day and age, where minimum pay and Stringent Health and safety are in place, and we are in the midst of a global depression I have to say-workers should be free to withdraw their labor and employers should be free to withdraw their employment

The fact that people have dared to go on strike over the years have won rights like, sick leave, maternity leave, maternity pay etc so don't sneer at it.

However, with most of the country having to accept cuts because of the recession, going on strike because you've been offered 1% and you wanted 2% is IMHO, taking it a bit far.

Something I forgot to mention - BAA employees would not be feeling so angry at their lack of bonus and small payrise this year if they had achieved their targets. They came extremely close to hitting their targets but the volcano and a strike by BA cabin crew meant they fell just short. Does anyone else see the irony of UNITE calling for strike action on behalf of one employee group because their pay situation has been scuppered by the actions of another group of employees UNITE advised to strike?

">50% of union membership should vote for a strike for it to take effect."

Oh right. So you would have a higher threshold for unions than for, say, a general election?

Or even Backinthebox the irony that whilst UNITE call the cabin crew to strike, other UNITE members keen to protect their jobs and company (BA I mean) went in and volunteered either as cabin crew or to fill roles by others who volunteered as cabin crew.

Ho hum I suppose if UNITE didn't cause these situations they wouldn't have a job.

Thankyou backinthebox you said what I wanted to say, but with an eloquence I lack. :)

"Think you're immume Mr Tube Driver? They'll just import Chinese drivers to do the job for half your pay. And a lot less sick days."

Can't ever see that happening.

Thank you for your posts! I've been reading with interest. I have a number of friends who would be devestated by this strike if they went ahead for personal and tragic reasons (as I'm sure we all would in some way!)

Backinthebok thank you for that post. You amke total sense.

YABVU. If people hadn't taken the hard and financially difficult decision to strike in the past we wouldn't have the kinds of holiday pay, sick pay and working conditions we now enjoy.

I think 1.5% payrise is offensive when BAA are looking at making close on £100m profit this year.

What is wrong with people who have the attitude 'if I'm not getting it why should anyone else'??

Re the BA strike - Willy Walsh is looking to decimate BA Cabin Crew terms and conditions as well as drastically reducing their basic pay. I don't blame them for striking.

And yes, striking is intended to cause inconvenience and is a last resort.

Here's a question for those supporting the strikes. Is it ok for people from one company to make decisions that would result in other people from other companies losing out on a day (or more) without pay?

Eg. airline staff and retail staff within the airports.

Bearing in mind that those who will lose pay are the ones on hourly rates - which usually aren't too far off minimum wage.

Pocketmonster I have been at the heart of Heathrow throughout the duration of the BA strikes and know the facts as a result of spending the last 8 months sitting at a desk opposite a UNITE rep from a different employee group - one who took a pay cut and saw his department take redundancies. He thought the cabin crew strike was unreasonable, and listening to his opinion as well as being an employee who received non-public information to enable us to carry out our jobs safely and successfully while trying to manage potential conflict between striking workers and non-strikers, has given me a fairly good amount of inside information as to the political situation surrounding the strike and the union officials involved. What is your background?

The cabin crew T&Cs were not going to be decimated - they were to be the only group in the company who did NOT receive a pay cut. Neither were there going to be any compulsory redundancies - there were to be a small number of voluntary redundancies on VERY generous packages. Neither would there be an increase in the amount of time they would spend at work. I have documentary proof that this is the case. They HAVE lost their staff travel, however this does not and never has formed any part of their T&Cs, and was lost as a direct result of their actions. As I said earlier - an adult negotiation by their UNITE officials at a much earlier stage in the proceedings would have resulted in them having the same grown-up relationship that the majority of the other employee groups within the airline have with their employer.

The fact that BAA is making profit has no bearing at all on whether a pay rise is automatic for all of it's employees. If a target was set and not met - that is more relevant. There are many reasons why a company may not be in a position to offer a large payrise even when a profit has been made - there are investors and shareholders to consider, investment for future growth of the company, and many other factors. The fact is that the company did not meet it's minimum operating profit target for bonuses or larger payrises to be paid.

Frankly I would be over the moon if my pay cut was turned back into a 1.5% pay rise. But thanks to the short sighted and ignorant chest-beating by UNITE that is not likely to happen any time soon. I feel they should graciously acknowledge that they did not achieve their targets and get over it. Perhaps if UNITE had not incited such behaviour in the BA cabin crew, the BAA employees would be savouring their bonuses and rises now?

That's very informative - thanks BITB

I work in the public sector and am frequently accused of being a 'fat cat with a gold plated pension' (I wish!). I earn a modest wage, quite like my job even though I am doing my job and the jobs of 2 other posts which have been 'rationalised' and just want to help the people I am here to. Unfortunatley being 'back office' and therefore unimportant and a non-job (apparently) I am probably for the chop soon.

Workers rights are being slowly eroded again.
But to be honest I am very uncomfortable with
striking and with the union I am a member of, who frankly don't give a sh*t if you work in an office and don't collect bins.

I think the issue is WHY do people want to strike and what has led them to that point?

If my union call a strike, I will not be participating as I don't agree with striking for pay when I have a perfectly adequate wage coming in - many do not have that luxury right now.

But that's my opinion and knowing a bit about what BA staff are going through, I understand why it's come to this.

x

I am going to let Backinthebox do all my posts!

Cookie70 this is a BAA dispute not a BA dispute, BA is where cabin crew have recently had another pay rise, can have staff travel for commuting, and for the first time in history an offer has been made to staff that makes you worse off for being a union member-that's what the unions have done for cabin crew.
Same union yes, but still disunity amongst the members and the Union.
I do agree with your point though, that Unions seem to almost feel you are unworthy of representation if you work in an office, but they may become very caring towards you if they think they can shaft the Government by rallying you to strike.

Sorry - everyone's going to scream at me - but, OP, YANBU. There are lots of people out there who get treated like shit at work, who don't or can't strike. Those who do, in a recession, are waving their arrogant job security like a red rag to a number of bulls.

My dp earned his bonus in 2008 three times over (300% over targets). Because the recession hit soon after, it was held back two years and paid over three years, with the threat that he would have none of it if he didn't stay until the last installment was paid. Same the year after (doubled targets - bonus slashed, held back and paid in installments). Did he strike? No. Did he in fact double his target this year in the first six months of the year? Yes.
I'm sorry to be a bit of a fascist and I fully accept I will be called all sorts of names from more liberal people, but free market economies mean that strikers deserve to get paid. Everyone likes a free market when it's riding high, and interest rates are at 10%.

Why SHOULD you be on the side of people who are asking for a payrise?? They aren't campaigning to end children being sent up chimneys or women being denied the vote - they want more dollah. If airport staff were generally helpful, efficient and courteous, perhaps there would be a little more sympathy. To ask for support when they are (IME) generally less pleasant than a trip to the dentist is laughable.

"There are lots of people out there who get treated like shit at work, who don't or can't strike."

Then they should get off their arses, organise and form a union, shouldn't they? Why should those who didn't choose short-term gain over long-term security be abused? Virtually every agreement that bars union-formation was "balanced" at the time with better pay and/or conditions. The nerve/willingness to use the only real power the mass of employees have left at their disposal - the right to withdraw labour - was (and is every day) hard fought-for.

That's great that they are fighting to make their lot better, but when they are putting other's jobs/earnings at risk, it's difficult to feel any sympathy.

As I said earlier, they may be choosing to strike without pay. But they are also choosing for others to go a day without pay if they force the airports to close.

They are also putting more jobs at risk of vanishing altogether by discouraging people from using the airports.

So my sympathies lie squarely with the people who have only just seen their colleagues made redundant, and who know they too are at risk. Rather than people who actually got a payrise.

heracles Not everyone who gets treated badly at work can strike, even when they are members of a well organised union.

As a Nurse, we have seen poor pay rises etc for years and years, staff numbers are cut, specialist nurses take on Drs roles (including prescribing) as the Drs hours have been cut but then the managers complain that senior nurses are expensive (even tho much cheaper than Drs) and posts get slashed to save money.

How many posts do you see on here complaining about poor NHS care? Not surprising when there isn't enough staff to do the job properly and ensure a good process of care.

Imagine the uproar if Nurses went on strike!

I think they should stop throwing their teddies out of the cot and stop striking. They are not presenting themselves in a very professional light.

I don't have an issue with people sticking up for their rights but Unions/Strikes is not the answer.
UNITE are going to destroy BA, what for!? because they like to show they are calling the shots. BA cabin crew have got what they originally wanted and because they behaved as they did their employers took away a perk (for that what it was). And they are persisting in the strike action.
Now they have got an almost resolution to that issue they are moving on to BAA.
BITB talks a lot of sense.
and as a final point I would be extremely pissed off if my holiday was cancelled because of strike action, as I'm sure would BAA/BA staff be pissed off if they came to my company and I wouldn't deal with their issue or they went to hospital and the nurses wouldn't treat them because they were on strike.
Just because you have a union doesn't mean you're immune from cut backs or changes in the current financial state we are in.
Now waiting for the kicking......