Guest_FaFa!_* Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I agree - and workers should be paid in food and lodging only with vouchers issued to spend in the company shop ... You've forgotten the regulation uniforms without pockets (they'll only start thieving) and being marched to and from work under armed guard. Otherwise I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Yeah sorry, didn't see your post. Couldn't be arsed to edit it. I think we both posted at the same time. Great minds think alike, I didn't realise it applied at my level as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Which means the union becomes liable for any losses BA incurs should they strike regardless. Interesting. This really is a highly paid indentured servitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris25 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I agree - and workers should be paid in food and lodging only with vouchers issued to spend in the company shop ... Or maybe we can parade Tony Woodley in manacles like Reagan did to a union boss during the US airtraffic controllers strike ... Economic development is what has given workers freedom. Not striking lunatics. In the 1800's you pretty much had to work in grotty conditions otherwise you would starve. It is only with the advent of machinery and increased wealth, that working conditions improved. Striking pretty much decimated all of our major industries in the UK. Now we have to sell ponzi schemes and Xfactor to the world, and pretend we are "rich" by borrowing from Mr China man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest_FaFa!_* Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Economic development is what has given workers freedom. Not striking lunatics. No, economic development has raised living standards, it has not given freedom. They are entirely separate as can be seen in China, for example. In the 1800's you pretty much had to work in grotty conditions otherwise you would starve. It is only with the advent of machinery and increased wealth, that working conditions improved. Striking pretty much decimated all of our major industries in the UK. Now we have to sell ponzi schemes and Xfactor to the world, and pretend we are "rich" by borrowing from Mr China man. Again, no. Working conditions improved because they were fought for. France strikes at the drop of a hat and they don't sell ponzi schemes and X Factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Storm Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 BA cabin crew had said they would walk out from December 22, escalating a dispute over job losses and changes to working practices. Some 13,000 BA staff were balloted by Unite, 92.5 percent of whom favoured industrial action. However, London's High Court on Thursday upheld BA's complaint that the Unite union breached industrial relations law by balloting around 1,000 staff who have since left the company or were in the process of leaving and should not have been balloted. Whatever you think about whether they should or shouldnt strike at xmas. If you look at the numbers, I find it quite unsettling that one of our courts has made a decision not based on facts, but more whether BA should experience a strike at xmas. Even if you assume that the 1,000 staff who had a vote and shouldnt, voted yes to strike. That 1,000 was 7.69% of the total number. 92.5% - 7.69% = 84.81% who were allowed to vote and voted yes. So however you look at this, this decision is unjust and shows the courts are on the side of big business and not actually on the side of truth. (No real surprise really I guess) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hilltop Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 These unions crack me up sometimes - they really do. The expression about British WWI soldiers being massacred by incompetent generals comes to mind 'Lions led by donkeys' Revisionist history is now saying the Generals did quite a good job in the circumstances. In this particular case, the Union officials seem to have been startled by the vehemence of their members reaction. People do not like to think that they are being shafted by the likes of Wally Walsh. There seems to be an element of the wisdom of crowds in the staff's response and they, after all, know the issues better than we do, especially when we have the wonderful media moderating the information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potwalloper Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 So however you look at this, this decision is unjust and shows the courts are on the side of big business and not actually on the side of truth. (No real surprise really I guess) Courts following the law are not unjust. I can understand a Unite member being very very angry with the way their union handled things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Courts following the law are not unjust. I can understand a Unite member being very very angry with the way their union handled things. Courts following the law can be unjust. Justice isn't what a court decides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roseland69 Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 BA cabin crew had said they would walk out from December 22, escalating a dispute over job losses and changes to working practices. Some 13,000 BA staff were balloted by Unite, 92.5 percent of whom favoured industrial action. However, London's High Court on Thursday upheld BA's complaint that the Unite union breached industrial relations law by balloting around 1,000 staff who have since left the company or were in the process of leaving and should not have been balloted. Whatever you think about whether they should or shouldnt strike at xmas. If you look at the numbers, I find it quite unsettling that one of our courts has made a decision not based on facts, but more whether BA should experience a strike at xmas. Even if you assume that the 1,000 staff who had a vote and shouldnt, voted yes to strike. That 1,000 was 7.69% of the total number. 92.5% - 7.69% = 84.81% who were allowed to vote and voted yes. So however you look at this, this decision is unjust and shows the courts are on the side of big business and not actually on the side of truth. (No real surprise really I guess) But the Union failed to follow the rules by allowing those already being made redundant to vote. Schoolboy error that gave the big business victory on a plate without any need for any brown envelopes being handed over by BA execs to judges. Simple as really. Its not a conspiracy (in this instance at least). Just an almighty **** up by the unions really and I bet some staff at BA are pretty angry about it at the moment as its the Union's fault that the majority vote has come to nought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potwalloper Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Courts following the law can be unjust. Justice isn't what a court decides. I know what you mean, but I am not talking in abstract terms. I am being pragmatic. That may seem odd to you. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Storm Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 (edited) You are assuming that the rules say, that if anyone votes who wasnt allowed to vote the whole ballet is void. Which would be ludicrous. If they had won by a very small percentage, I could understand the judges verdict. They did not, so a small amount of disallowed votes should not change the decision. If were them, I would organise a fast track ballet immediately. 8 Days to xmas, Im sure it could be done in 5 if they really wanted to. Edited December 17, 2009 by Johnny Storm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 But the Union failed to follow the rules by allowing those already being made redundant to vote. Schoolboy error that gave the big business victory on a plate without any need for any brown envelopes being handed over by BA execs to judges. Simple as really. Its not a conspiracy (in this instance at least). Just an almighty **** up by the unions really and I bet some staff at BA are pretty angry about it at the moment as its the Union's fault that the majority vote has come to nought. I don't think so. They can just walk out anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I know what you mean, but I am not talking in abstract terms. I am being pragmatic. That may seem odd to you. Sorry. I'm being pragmatic. You are not, you are being craven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goat Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 If were them, I would organise a fast track ballet immediately. 8 Days to xmas, Im sure it could be done in 5 if they really wanted to. Not legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potwalloper Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 You are assuming that the rules say, that if anyone votes who wasnt allowed to vote the whole ballet is void. Which would be ludicrous. If they had won by a very small percentage, I could understand the judges verdict. They did not, so a small amount of disallowed votes should not change the decision. If were them, I would organise a fast track ballet immediately. 8 Days to xmas, Im sure it could be done in 5 if they really wanted to. I am guessing, but if the ballot was not run correctly, it becomes void. It isn't ususally about yeah-but-no-but fair's-fair arguments, but instead the technicalities have to be right. Nothing new about that. Quite right too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I am guessing, but if the ballot was not run correctly, it becomes void. It isn't ususally about yeah-but-no-but fair's-fair arguments, but instead the technicalities have to be right. Nothing new about that. Quite right too. That should be up to the unions members, not a 3rd party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potwalloper Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I'm being pragmatic. You are not, you are being craven. That depends on your point of view, and your definition of pragmatic. Also, I don't think I am cowardly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
US Citizen Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I hope they strike anyway, tbh. What happens if they do? Men with guns Injin. Men with guns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Storm Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 I am guessing, but if the ballot was not run correctly, it becomes void. It isn't ususally about yeah-but-no-but fair's-fair arguments, but instead the technicalities have to be right. Nothing new about that. Quite right too. Thats ********. If our general election has the same rule we would never change goverments as some techinicality would be found every time. Ooo theres an idea for you Gordon if you are reading this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potwalloper Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 That should be up to the unions members, not a 3rd party. Ideally, maybe. I would quite like them to get on and strike, bust the airline and be replaced by people who want to provide the service without pouting and being orange (see excellent point made by OP). But, it's not my dispute, and we don't live in an ideal world. Pragmatism, see? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potwalloper Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 (edited) Thats ********. If our general election has the same rule we would never change goverments as some techinicality would be found every time. Ooo theres an idea for you Gordon if you are reading this. If you tell me which technicalities are breached without recounts/reballots, I'd be interested. Edited December 17, 2009 by chute Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 That depends on your point of view, and your definition of pragmatic. Also, I don't think I am cowardly. Nope, objectively you aren't being pragmatic. Relabeling something and trying to pretend that makes it different isn't pragmatism, it's either cowardice or insanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Injin Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Men with guns Injin. Men with guns. I don't get why anyone wuld sign up to this crap though. Any clue? low self esteem perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Potwalloper Posted December 17, 2009 Share Posted December 17, 2009 Nope, objectively you aren't being pragmatic. Relabeling something and trying to pretend that makes it different isn't pragmatism, it's either cowardice or insanity. You are not objective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.