They shouldn't. If they get an increased Sunday/bank holiday rate then they should get that rate on boxing day (no idea if they do or not), but I don't think not getting it warrants this.
In the case of the transport workers threatening strikes over the olympic bonuses, it has nothing to do with the media shapeing opinions. How can you threaten to strike, when you have been offered extra cash as a bonus for turning up and doing the job you are already paid to do? It's ridiculous. It's quite simply greed. How these people can moan about the "fat cats" and then act like spoilt children is beyond me. If my employer offered me an extra grand for doing my normal job just because it was going to be a bit busier i'd be jumping for joy - not holding them to ransom and fighting for more free money.... They should have been greatful but instead threatened to strike. It is times like this that people see and go "hang on, the unions are just being ****s..." The BA strikes are another great example. The BA cabin crew have better terms, benefits and salaries than almost any other airline. They where previously over-staffed for the size of the aircraft they fly and due to the economic crisis they decided to make some very, very reasonable cuts to staffing numbers/ hours. It was very obviously a neccessary step to keep up with competition. Despite being some of the best treated employees in the world for this industry they made it hell for BA, ruined peoples holidays, tried to cause as much financial trouble to the company as possible. To the point where the company was losing millions. Ultimately if they had continued striking it would ruin the company and they would all lose there jobs. The term "don't bite the hand that feeds you" springs to mind. I'm not saying there is never a reason to strike or that every strike we have ever had has been for poor reasons! But that in recent times the reasons given for striking are terrible and often the vote to strike is not a strong one but a slim majority. Unions seem to throw there weight around and use strikes as a threat to get things which in some cases they simply do not deserve.
Unions and workers in general in this country have less rights than just about any other country in the western democracies.We are seeing under this government workers rights being eroded further.Only this week we have heard of plans to cut the amount of notice a company has to give when making people redundant.Couple that with the time scale being cut to be able to sue for wrongful dismissal.
The BA workers have legal contracts with the company.BA wanted to ride rough shod over the workers and impose new working conditions on them.Surely if the BA workers have better conditions than employees of other companies surely it's up to the employees of other companies to improve their cotracts and not expect BA workers to come down to their level.
They where not being brought down to the level of other industry workers... It was simply that on certain aircraft they had 1 more member of cabin crew than was actually needed (1 more than other airlines use for the same aircraft) and so cuts where being made so as to not be paying for a member of staff that isn't needed. Yes, that means a load of people will have either lost there jobs or had there hours cut - but it is a neccessary decision to remain competitive in the market. If you had 2 cleaners to clean your house and you realised that actually you only need 1 cleaner, what are you going to do? Are you going to keep the cleaner on that isn't needed, paying two salaries instead of one? No, your going to cut one of the cleaners. Yes it's not nice to lose your job or have your hours cut, but throwing your toys out of the pram isn't the answer.
Having one extra member of staff hasn't made a great deal of difference to BA's profits over the years.I would hardly call fighting for your jobs and conditions of employment throwing your toys out of the pram.You and i obviously have differing political views and how workers should be treated.
This is where I disagree with you. BA are not an employer on the same scale as a private individual employing a cleaner, they are now a multi national private enterprise that generates huge profits for it's owners. They provide a service that's well met within their profit margin, let's not forget that profit is SURPLUS, not operating costs. So for me the argument that workers rights are secondary to the need to protect profit and competitiveness is not acceptable. BA were once a nationally owned company like BT and British Rail, and they were recognised as an organisation that existed to serve the people who paid for them with their taxes, not to pay private individuals to generate private profit.
It was once public. It isn't now. It is a private company. I fail to see why BA should continue to employ an extra member of staff per flight than is needed. Just because that is how they set up to start with they now have to stick to that despite it making more business sense not to have that extra employee? I wasn't aware that BA was a social project. Regardless of what the job is - if it is demonstrated to be possible to do the job with less people or in less hours then it makes sense not to hire extra people and pay extra wages for the sake of it. Businesses are not set up with the sole aim of pleasing employees. Primarily they are there to make profits, or capture market share etc... If it makes good business sense to have less employees for a certain role, then there should be no obligation to maintain poor business practice for the sake of employing people you don't need to. The employees at BA actually have it very comfortable for the industry and i think it's ridiculous to start striking, attempting to cause real financial trouble to the company, it's customers and it's shareholders because they are making cuts to fall in line with the rest of the competition for labour costs.
How do you so much about BA employees terms and conditions of employment and how they compare to other airlines ?
Firstly i know someone who worked for BA (now a different airline as a pilot rather than cabin crew) and so had some insight into what he got at the time. I also took a keen interest in the story as my mum was flying with BA around the time of the strikes and so i had to keep her updated on how many/which flights where running, whilst doing this i read alot about the story Oh and i have recently accepted a job with an airline i won't name and during my process of applying for jobs i did research to compare the benefits of working for different companies so as to make the best choice about who i wanted to work for. I do not have an in depth knowldge of the subject but have done a decent amount of reading into it
I'm not sure in what capacity you've joined the Airline, but congrats on the job. Are you ground staff or a flyer ? I would suggest though that the conditions that this Airline will use to inform your contract and working conditions will mean that you're subject to the same issues that your colleagues have felt necessary to protect their livelihoods over.
With the greatest of respect,i wouldn't mind betting that you read about the BA workers in newspapers that have their own political agenda.
With the greatest of respect, i am perfectly capable of forming my own opinions and do not simply read some right wing newspaper and agree with them... Pull your head out your arse, you old welsh git! I have said how i formed my opinion, a combination of knowing someone who worked as cabin crew for BA at the time, knowing someone who works as Cabin Crew for Virgin, my own research into it through media outlets such as newspapers (shock horror) and my main source of news - the BBC website. Add to this the fact i have recently accepted a job to work within the industry and as such have met alot of people who work within the industry and have a certain amount of knowledge on the salaries and benefits you get in this role within different companies. I'd say compared to the average person i have a wealth of information about this subject, mainly due to the fact that i have spent the last few months researching which company i wanted to work for. I'm not pretending to know all of the ins and outs of the negotiations leading to the strikes at BA - but i am very confident in my assertion that BA workers have some of the best benefits and pay packages within the Industry. They simply could not accept that it was the obvious path forward for the company to move labour costs more in line with other airlines. (if i'm comming across a bit arsey it is most likely due to you asking how i think i know about the salaries etc, me telling you, and then you going "lolz i think u read the daily mail too much".)
@PISKIE - i'll be in the sky Thanks for the congrats And i've chosen a company which is very staff oriented so i don't think i'll be having any employment issues. Cheers for the concern
Virgin Atlantic employees have worse terms and conditions than their BA counterparts for the simple reason Branson does not recognise trade unions and will not negotiate with them.BA workers have some of the best terms and conditions in the industry for the simple reason that they are union members and the unions negotiate on their behalf. p.s I'm not ****ing old
Your one line replies are so annoying... [edit: you edited your post and made it longer while i was replying!!] The fact that i have named two airlines that i know people who have/do work there does not mean that i am basing my assumption about BA benefits/salaries being better than other airlines purely on what those two people have said. Please do fill me in on your insider knowledge of the industry as you clearly know more than i do.... Unfortunately for you, saying "i think u read that in a newspaper" does not counter any of my points....
When the BA dispute was on how often did you hear the view of the employees ? Most of the reporting was done in the press which is generally right wing and anti union.When have you ever heard the susposedly un biased BBC put a positive slant on the unions ?
And to be honest it doesn't matter how they have got the good benefits/salaries they have now - the point i was making was that they where being ****s when they went on strike because the cuts where neccessary and the damage they caused striking was completely disproportionate to the decision being taken by BA.
