Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok so what do we think of striking, here, and in general?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8415370.stm

Personally being a great lover of Thatcher, i think that BAs whining, overpaid, workshy pseudo-socialists are idiots of the highest order, have just pressed a self destruct button, and i hope they go bankrupt and end up on the dole.

Firemen? Dont support them, everyone wants to do your job and you strike?! Pull the other one. And you get paid more than your average public sector worker, and FAR more than soldiers, sailors and airmen.

Teachers? Coppers? Dont support them.

If you dont like your job, leave it. Thats my attitude, if they can fill your boots (firemen being the most obvious one) with ease, then they should.

Thoughts? (I of course expect to be lambasted predominantly by all the Scousers, Geordies and Scottish people on here. Get back to work you dole wallers!)

"To become a millionaire, get a billion dollars and start an airline." - Virgin Atlantic Airways founder Richard Branson

I'm not a fan of labor unions particularly strikes in the transportation industry. From the pie charts on that link, BA does look pretty overpaid compared to their competition. I wonder how much their pilots are being overpaid (another profession that needs a reality check when it comes to income; airline pilots).

Its a shame to strike in the month of X-Mas. I'm a fan of what Ronald Reagan did to the 13,000 Air Traffic Controllers who illegally went on strike decades ago...fire 'em and ban them from Federal service. Not sure how that can be applied to this situation though.

Pay wage strikes are funny to me. Lets say pilot A goes on strike. He makes $200k per year and he wants a raise to $225k per year.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but if you feel the need to make an extra $25k per year because you can't live on $200k per year perhaps a raise isn't going to do any good, perhaps you need to change your lifestyle so that you don't need the extra $25k.

It's like postal workers going on strike. Around here they make $16/hour starting for a job only requiring a HS diploma. 3 years ago they went on strike and demanded the extra dollar. Now in my city where I live $15/hour won't get you a mansion but it will let you live damn comfortably, not to mention being a Federal employee their insurances are paid for by the tax payers, not themselves.

So striking because your employer refuses to raise your pay from $15 per hour to $16 per hour is mental. The extra dollar when already making double digits is not going to make a noticeable difference in paycheck size.

Basically people are getting above themselves. If you havent been to medical school for ten years what gives you the right to all that cash?

Postal Workers is another classic one. What possible skills do they have? An Ape can be a postal worker, same with a fireman. No skills, you dont need to go to university, you just need a pre-frontal lobe.

According to the info in the UK papers, the cabin crew salary for BA is about £29,000 and the salary for some other airlines like Virgin is £15,000.

BA also have great benefits and a HUGE fething HOLE THE SIZE OF ICELAND in their pension scheme.

The airline blatantly isn't sustainable in its current form, and the strike has a good chance of putting it into bankruptcy.

Tonight's news is that the union is moving back towards negotiations which may indicate the whole thing was a piece of Brinksmanship and they just wanted to force the management away from their super hard line tactics.

>>If you havent been to medical school for ten years what gives you the right to all that cash

Applies to bankers too, of course, probably even more so.

There has to be reality on both sides. The bosses can't be allowed to think that workers are all peons who can be scared into a poverty line salary by threatening to outsource their jobs to Calcutta.

I mean, £15,000 a year and some free tickets is nice but it won't buy you a small one-bed flat in the south of England.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My annual commuting costs are about £1,250 and it's a typical length journey for London.

Pendulum swings.

Thatcher was evil, she broke the unions to the extent that workers in many areas are now underprotected from abusive management and being treated as a commodity.

On the other hand, even as a socialist, I believe the unions in the UK during the 70s had entirely too much power and needed limitation.

Both extremes are undesirable.
As a worker in the financial sector, having watched the 'year of the long knives' take place in my workplace where instead of making redundancies, I've seen people subjected to 'constructive dismissals' and 'restructuring' cuts at the ground floor, whilst my company has taken on a new director to line manage 3 directors who used to report to another director, who will now report to the new director so that that director can report to the other director...And take on another 2 senior managers...
I must say that I have little love for the Thatcherite dream and wish there were unions still available to help us when they finally get around to coming after me...

Much postal work simply sucks to do. I applied at one point, did testing, took the Federal service oath, and was offered a position. But after actually trying out the job, I decided that it was so mind-numblingly repetitive and stressful that I would shoot myself or someone else.

I agree on some points MGS, im a very centrist voter, gak, i swallowed all the bollocks and voted for Labor back in what... 1997? I was only 18.. impressionable.

The point is, people are greedy, if they can get more, they will take it. You need some common sense, and yeah, maybe Thatcher took it too far, and at the other end of the scale, if had to be done. If you dont break the back of the unions they will break the back of the economy. (however, Evil? Come on now.. clearly the woman was not "evil" in the truest sense of the word, also many many people feel she was one of our best PMs, just not most lefties and liberals. )

I can see both sides. But these gakkers need a lesson in how the real world works. It aint a bottomless pit of money. I hope that BA sack them. gak, ill quit my job and be a trolley dolley for 29k a year!

I was under the impression that airline pilots specifically, were extremely underpaid, the world throughout. I want airline pilots to be paid very well, they are the only thing in between me and a vacuous death. That aside though, it does sound like this strike is just going to driving BA directly into the ground...

Unions in general, tend to piss me off quite a bit though. I would not say that they are unnecessary, but their combined track record, has been one fraught with idiocy combined with greed... which is a pretty bad mix.

mattyrm wrote:Basically people are getting above themselves. If you havent been to medical school for ten years what gives you the right to all that cash?

Postal Workers is another classic one. What possible skills do they have? An Ape can be a postal worker, same with a fireman. No skills, you dont need to go to university, you just need a pre-frontal lobe.

They have the skills to be able to not deliver you mail...

I don't know about everywhere else, but a full time job, making 16 dollars an hour; is borderline poverty (certainly not 'high living' to say the least) where I live. When you add the cost of living expenses up (mainly rent) living in some form of comfort (not in the ghetto, and with the ability to have nice things) in the bay area can easily eat up 3k a month. Making in the region of 2.2k a month, will cover basic expenses... and maybe a cheap flat screen TV or a laptop or something. Remember that working a government job is usually a long-term obligation, thus you should expect to be compensated for your commitment.

Rent: 1 bedroom apartment, in a decent area (app. 900-1250/month) 2 br (750 a piece if your lucky) 3-4 br (750 average, plus whatever craziness having that many roommates implies)

Transportation: Car w/ associated fees, and/or public transportation ( ing boooo!) (150-300/month given various factors, car problems, long distance commute, etc...)

Communication: Cell phone, House phone, Internet, etc... (app. 150-200/month, depending on associated problems, needing a fething new phone, because this POS, is a POS, for instance...)

Food: Groceries, Eating out occasionally, etc... (app. 350-500/month, depending on how much beans, rice, and top ramen you feel like trying to stomach...and yes, eating top ramen to save money is very, very stupid...)

Expenses: (up to 1k per month, given bounds of reason, and monetary limitations) The list is endless, mainly including things like vehicles which become necessary in many jobs/lifestyles. A new car, of decent value will set you back at least 12k, and on less than 30k a year, that is a mountain of cash. Having a new computer (not every freaking year of course), is also important for many careers/lifestyles; after all, who in the feth wants to be in a long-term career of any sort, while being forced to go online at the library?

I am of the frame of mind, that within your monetary limits, you should be able to afford living expenses, as well as keeping in the region of 15-20% of your income, for personal use. This does not directly assume that money will be spent on bars, parties, toys, etc... mainly because of the many unexpected problems life brings, and the necessary savings people need to have to cope with them.

If you are lucky, and you can manage your money well, it is very possible to raise a family on around 25-28k/ year; that comes with the assumption that you have other income aside. Long-term careers (8 yrs+), and any work that involves the possibility of serious injury, should be compensated as such. I for one, would have no interest in such a monotonous job as dealing with peoples mail for years on end, without being paid decently.

If you were only 18 in 1997 you don't really understand the degree to which the Tories had made themselves so hated.

I don't think New Labour ever really got it either.

BA is one of the former national airlines who used to have sole rights to flying between countries. With this nice monopoly, they operated reasonably comfortably and were able to offer decent salaries and benefits.

However, along came dereglation in the 80s which allowed anybody who could lease a plane to operate an airline. For these new enterprises, paying huge salaries didn't make good business sense and by reducing costs in this manner they were able to compete with the likes of BA.

As other posters have commented, BA have been unable to sustain their business against cheaper competition and have to reduce costs just like any other airline in order to survive.

In short BA staff need to take an economics lesson or find a new career. Either way, the fact they are choosing to inconvenience a load of people over Christmas makes me sympathise with the airline rather the staff.

mattyrm wrote:
The point is, people are greedy, if they can get more, they will take it. You need some common sense, and yeah, maybe Thatcher took it too far, and at the other end of the scale, if had to be done. If you dont break the back of the unions they will break the back of the economy. (however, Evil? Come on now.. clearly the woman was not "evil" in the truest sense of the word, also many many people feel she was one of our best PMs, just not most lefties and liberals. )

Sorry but here is truth...

Kilkrazy wrote:If you were only 18 in 1997 you don't really understand the degree to which the Tories had made themselves so hated.
I don't think New Labour ever really got it either.

I am a few years older than you and I remember how absolutely loathed she was.

Thatcher brought about Yuppies, embraced Greed is Good/God and the LOADSAMONEY culture, destroyed and sold off our industries, squandered our North Sea Oil, Privatised OUR water, electricity, royal mail, railways. She allowed British industry to collapse all the time delighting in telling us 'new jobs will be created by allowing #ubiquitous japanese car manufacturer # to build a factory here in the UK (fecking great, so shop floor workers get a wage...where does the END PROFIT go? Oh yeah, trickle down...and out of the country).

She is on record as saying that she only needs to and would only concern herself with keeping one third of the nation happy.

She built her years of gluttony on the unemployment of 3 million of the UKs population, this Wasn't during a recession, this was during a 'boom'. She whored Britannia to foreign interests.

Then there was The Poll Tax, a tax on the poor. Then there were the Poll Tax protests. Then she unleashed her tamed 'bodyguard of the rich' police on the protesters. Then there came the Poll Tax Riots.

Oh yes... and lest we forget, she recreated the underclass, not seen in this country since the freaking Victorian age.

So yes, I use the word Evil entirely in context and with absolute conviction. She was Evil, may she burn for what she did to this nation.

PS - Someone tell me how privatised water works in this country? If I live in a region owned by a water company and I don't like their service can I switch provider? No. That's a monopoly then isn't it? How the hell do you become prime minister and decide that you can sell the water that falls from the sky and that the people must now buy it from corporations who can charge whatever the hell they like because they don't have any competitors.

Important question:

When isn't some form of British service industry on strike?
It seems like every week, the "Latest Headlines" from the BBC news ticker I've got on Firefox says British Airways is preparing to strike or the Royal Mail is, etc.

Or do they just threaten to strike a lot?

£29K a year? For cabin crew?

Are you gaking me?

My missus has 2 degrees and teaches kids with special needs - she doesn't make much more than that! That's MENTAL.

How well paid are teachers in the U.K.? Out here only the teachers with decades of experience pull in a decent salary.

IMO, teachers should be pulling in 50k (US) minimum with ten years of experience. A lot of teachers make less than 30k, which I think is atrocious, and part of the reason that there are so many sub-par teachers in our school systems.

I do say sub-par, meaning actually quite terrible.

@Wrex - Well, my missus only started her job last year - she's on about 30K, IIRC... for employment purposes she counts as a NQT (Newly Qualified Teacher, I think...) because it's her first teaching job in the UK since finishing University - she taught in Spain before that. Also, she works in a private school - they pay less than state schools.
Depending on the exchange rate, it's about $50k with a year's experience.

See, that is much better, and I am sure that you have an awful lot of very good teachers.

I can't really see eye to eye with my dad for instance about this stuff, because he grew up in England, possibly in a time where education was easier to come by than it is now. Easier may not be the right word, but you catch my drift. Our public schools are downright bad education a lot of the time. Our colleges on the other hand, can be good, but a lot of the time the students are really the ones making it good; kind of defeating much of the purpose of that institution from the get-go.

@Wrex - It's a weird one... I think most do a good job here, but their authority has been eroded a little by the sound of it.
One of my lecturers is from Texas, and he seems to think our degree courses are too short...

But yeah, $30k for a high-school teacher? That seems low - you can earn that in a call-centre here.

Airline pilots are not paid to take a plane from point A to point B. They are paid to come up with a split second idea when only that idea is the difference between taking a plane down in one piece or start searching for a few hundred bodies.
Same with cabin crew, they are paid because in the event of an emergency they are suppose to keep cool while 200+ passengers are panicking, that a few of them are nothing more than glorified waitress is another issue.

M.

Kilkrazy wrote:If you were only 18 in 1997 you don't really understand the degree to which the Tories had made themselves so hated.

I don't think New Labour ever really got it either.

I'm looking forward to ten years from now, when people born in the 90s will start identifying themselves as Blairites.



Meanwhile, when strikes are threatened it's pretty common for a lot of people to assume management is being unreasonable, and whole lot of other people to assume the union is being unreasonable. In reality it's pretty rare that either side is covered in roses.

I'm also really indifferent to the idea of BA going under. It'd be sad for all the workers involved, but with the state of the airline industry right now its hard to see every airline surviving and I really hate flying British Airways.

Miguelsan wrote:Airline pilots are not paid to take a plane from point A to point B. They are paid to come up with a split second idea when only that idea is the difference between taking a plane down in one piece or start searching for a few hundred bodies.
Same with cabin crew, they are paid because in the event of an emergency they are suppose to keep cool while 200+ passengers are panicking, that a few of them are nothing more than glorified waitress is another issue.

M.

On top of the fact that they can be expected to sit instead of sleeping, and work as much as a 16 hour shift, sometimes even longer. I really don't care what you are doing, committing that much time is a very lofty request for your average person. I cannot imagine actually being able to put up with a job like that. Add in the fact that the statistical likelihood of any of those employees being injured in their jobs (well... killed really) is drastically higher than that of any average passenger.

The main issue here though, is the huge differences in wages between BA, and competing airlines. A difference of 50% in income, is really, really really really huge. I won't say that by many standards, they may deserve it (as other companies might very well be stiffing their employees due to the extremely high costs associated with business), but there is still a huge difference between their job, no job, or a job at another airline. 25k (UK) actually sounds reasonable for most work with a cabin crew, but 30k does sound pretty lofty TBTH. That is a difference of 10k US, and that is a very large sum.

Wrexasaur wrote:Add in the fact that the statistical likelihood of any of those employees being injured in their jobs (well... killed really) is drastically higher than that of any average passenger.

I don't know if that means much. Flying's still a lot safer than driving, presumably having a long enough commute is more likely to end in your death than being a pilot...

It means enough to mean something. It doesn't take a mathematician to understand how the odds would get worse quite rapidly. Not to say that they are high at all, just that they ARE there, and they are extremely real.

There are a lot more risks involved in flying, regardless of the catastrophic ones (I mean, there are a considerable amount of accidents regardless, I can think of dozens), and the fact that the odds are lower for them to occur, does not effect the seriousness of what could happen. You go down, that is pretty much it; I always chuckle a bit at the slide-boat thing. The odds that will make a difference, are probably much slimmer than getting into a crash in the first place.

Wrexasaur wrote:How well paid are teachers in the U.K.? Out here only the teachers with decades of experience pull in a decent salary.

IMO, teachers should be pulling in 50k (US) minimum with ten years of experience. A lot of teachers make less than 30k, which I think is atrocious, and part of the reason that there are so many sub-par teachers in our school systems.

I do say sub-par, meaning actually quite terrible.

Wow that is really, really bad. All the jobs I am looking at for teaching are starting at 40-45K a year. And that is starting...in Dallas!

Is that in a private school? Seems pretty rare for an opening teaching position to be that lucrative.

I thought you were studying journalism? Are you going to be teaching that?

I am sure that much of this is regional, especially being that I am in California. From what little I know about the East Coast, there schools are a lot more effective in general. I could have gone to a trade school for the last part of my High School years, instead of jumping headfirst into a pretty nasty job-market.

Wrexasaur wrote:Is that in a private school? Seems pretty rare for an opening teaching position to be that lucrative.

I thought you were studying journalism? Are you going to be teaching that?

I was a double major: History and Journalism/PR. Those are for public schools in the DFW Metroplex. I would like to teach for a few years, save up some money, pay down the student loans, and then go on to get my PhD. And I would be teaching history, with maybe a class for a school paper or something like that.

Good times mate, I wish you luck with that.

Aye, good luck mate. Did I hear you were thinking of studying in the UK? Whereabouts?

BA is a leftover industry from the era of trainswreck unions who's idea was. You got profits, hand'em over or we strike you into insolvency.

I wonder how Branson deals with staff who want more pay.

Thatcher did the right thing, the real problem was Blair. Because it was a Labour party in power, and Prescott was at the top of the union ladder kicking others off some industries could do things that hard line capitalists could only dream of. Moast unions are politcally motivated over worker orientated. Especially now, in the past the Unions went for Callaghan and Wilson but the nature changed. as part of New Labout the TUC has been leeching as much as any other part of the machine.
Established concerns with the exception of supermarkets must still deal with the unions. Newer companies of any size, plus the big name supermarkets can do what they like. Promotion caps, constructive dismissal, rank discrimination, the sort of things the Unions were acrtuially set up to stop they are powerless to stop. if an employer wants to shaft an employee they do it openly, if you dont like it sue. Good luck getting legal aid (unless you are a minority then you are in the money), otherwise its more hassle than it can possibly be worth. I know blatant constructive dismissal cases that in the 70;'s counld have happened in any industry happening full face valuie, companies dont even have to hide it.

Meanwhile in the few industries still infected by the Unions trainwreck economics still apply.

Virgin also escaped the union era, it was around, but only as a retailer. So the union bugbear cant strike Virgin. If you arent happy with half the money BA gives its staff just leave.

People forget just how much the unions fethed this country up. What he need are Unions leaders who are not off their tree greedy, work for the workforce and have some power to protect them. But thats as much an ifv as finding honest parliamentarians. They do exist, but not in the required numbers.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Thatcher... sold off our industries, squandered our North Sea Oil, Privatised OUR water, electricity, royal mail, railways.

Sorry to be a pedant MGS, but Thatcher didn't privatise the railways as even she thought that was "a privatisation too far" Major was the one who decided to sell the rail industry when he was scraping around for cash after the 1991 recession (it raised about 5bn, Woo. Hoo.). You can however subsitute railways for bus services in your statement.

(Currently studying for an MSc in Transport Planning )