VintageKrug - 16/12/2009 21:56 GMT
1. Unite (the passengers favourite) at it again, this time Baggage Handlers:
Unite spread further Christmas cheer.
"Airport baggage handlers and check-in staff at Heathrow and Aberdeen airports are set to hold a series of 48-hour strikes in a row over pay.
The Unite union said members working for SAS Ground Services would walk out from 22 December, with further strikes from Boxing Day and 3 January.
Unite says the stoppages will affect travellers on Emirates, Turkish and Thai airlines at T3 Heathrow. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8417148.stm
2. Eurostar on Strike, as reported in BT. Only French Crews Working (who'd have thought it would come to that...).
3. Malev pilots striking from 24th December, demanding a 24% pay rise (yes, you read correctly!!).
4. Qantas Engineers striking from tomorrow for five days, demanding 30% pay rise over 3 years.
A sorry state indeed.
oops, another late entrant:
5. Unite (once again) encouraging Gatwick Porters to strike over a "0% pay deal": er, so that would be an inflation adjusted pay RISE then, against a backdrop of widespread unemployment....
www.unitetheunion.com/news__events/latest_news/gatwick_airport_porters_to_str.aspx
VintageKrug - 22/03/2010 17:18 GMT
Now it looks like the trains are going out on strike over easter.
And Lufty is also at the beck and call of Unions:
"Pilots at Europe's biggest airline, Lufthansa, will stage a new four-day strike from 13 April, following the breakdown of talks with management."
Anything else?
There are perfect storm conditions for strikes in the UK: recession is pushing business towards reducing staff and staff remuneration, unions are flexing their muscles and their chequebooks in the run up to the election and the talented selfless professionals who run the unions for the benefit of their members have to think of their future positions within the Trade Union movement.
Unfortunately Dave is no Maggie.
Tim2sms - 23/03/2010 14:48 GMT
Another to add to Strike Watch, Failing Britain - British Gas staff vote for strike http://bit.ly/aCqlY4
The GMB trade union said staff would take industrial action over what it described as "macho management".
British Gas said it had yet to be told the reasons behind the dispute.
I am afraid all unionised industries are in for a period of dreadful industrial relations.
We have had a booming economy for 15 years and naturally when the cake is getting bigger it is easy enough to share it round. Now much of the developed world is in for slow growth if any at all, the cake will not be growing, and those with industrial muscle will think they have a right to use it. If you think current strikes are bad wait until a government tries to take on the public sector workers and reduce their terms of employment.
Still no Maggie but Mick is weighing in: ""It's not often in my life that I've been entirely supportive of what Willie Walsh is doing, but he's absolutely right in this case." I'm sure that Ryanair's provision of wet lease aircraft to BA is not just sentimental...
Tim2sms - 24/03/2010 14:41 GMT
Civil Servants Mount Budget Day Picket Lines In Protest Over Planned Cuts To Redundancy Pay - Sky News - http://bit.ly/d1mJJd
Redjohn - 26/03/2010 10:43 GMT
Bring back Maggie eh, what a fantastic ruse by corporate management. Look behind the reasoning of Mr Walsh's actions that have caused this dispute and perhaps you might not be quite so damning. People strike as a LAST resort, they don't get paid and risk being victimised by the management they are protesting against.
In this case the intrasigent management of BA. Your citing of Maggies example of crushing the miners union resulted in the destruction of communities, towns and whole areas that were left without a voice and with massive unemployment. Workers had their rights shredded and pay cut.
Unions were set up to give the working men and women of the world, a voice to say NO to brutal management, perhaps you would like to go back to a more Victorian example of virtual slavery when no management is ever criticised on decisions that favour the company over the employee.
ABSOBLEEDINLUTELY agree with you Redjohn!!!.WW is a truly ghastly person who seems intent on turning BA into yet another downmarket carrier.The workers deserve all the support we can give them.
VintageKrug - 26/03/2010 19:07 GMT
"I'm trying to remember the last strike that made the slightest difference to anything whatsoever.
Apart from the miners' strike, obviously, which led to all the miners losing their jobs."
Strikes very rarely, if ever, result in workers getting the results they seek.
VintageKrug - 16/12/2011 08:29 GMT
There's a rumour that the tube drivers are striking on Boxing Day - so hopefully service will be better than usual if you're planning on hitting the sales.
Tim2sms - 16/12/2011 08:55 GMT
Boris Bikes all the way!
Redjohn - 20/12/2011 10:50 GMT
Unions are there to stop workers being abused by management. Every redundancy that is made could lead to someone losing their home, being unable to pay heating bills or feed their families, just so some fat cat can make enough money to build a second swimming pool.
The right wing are determined to take the working class back to the dark ages where management are allowed carte blanche to sack, change pay and conditions and enforce austerity when it pleases them.
The simple facts are that senior management pay has rocketed in the past 30 years and the vast majority, when compared to inflation are not. If you or anyone else can suggest that somehow this is because they work harder, then you, my friend, are a fool.
Striking is the last option, not because people can't be bothered to work. When you strike you don't get paid, it's because they are given no other alternative.
Redjohn,
I agree with a lot of what you say in your post above although not all of it.
My main gripe is with Unions who threaten strikes unreasonably to take or try to take unfair advantage of certain situations. for example demanding more money not to strike during the Olympics or demanding triple pay and a day off to work on Boxing day. I certainly accept that they should receive higher pay for working on what would otherwiswe be a holiday for them but why triple pay and a day off as well. Is that not being a bit greedy?
VintageKrug - 20/12/2011 13:35 GMT
Unions play an important role in tempering the excesses of less enlightened employers, and especially so in cyclical lower paid industries when supported by Industrial law, properly applied.
However, too many Unions lack democracy, are secretive, lack transparency especially as regards financial disclosure, are overly politicised and don't have the best interests of all their members at heart. Indeed many of the traits which lead to the crisis within the banks can be seen already embedded within many (though not all) Unions.
There are lots of Union people at the top (and indeed in the middle) getting fat of the backs of the very workers they are meant to protect.
When Unions make unreasonable demands, or become dysfunctional, it's time for those unions themselves to take action.
Sadly, very few do and the militant intransigence which does so much to damage the Union movement is the result.
The concept of employees receiving a profit share is eminently sensible - this can be done via a share award (a one off benefit, plus a long term potential for capital gain, plus possible dividend income) or via cash.
It is unsurprising that some unions have resisted the move to employee share ownership vociferously, even when offered by their host firms - another example of Unions actively frustrating their members' potential to become part-owners of the companies for which they work.
The real problem starts at the top in companies
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/nov/22/high-executive-pay-corrosive-economy
Excutive pay has risen from 13 times the average pay in 1980 to 169 times the average nowadays!!
This is not based on performance, even when share values have halved, dividends zero, performance against sector and competition flat lining the execs still manage to award themselves double and triple inflation awards with multi-million pound bonuses - for negative performance
CEO X claims an increase as CEO Y has had one; CEO Y claims as CEO Z; Z claims as X has had one and the CEO salary escalator continues on and on. CEOs feathering their nests from shareholders and pension funds having done nothing to justify their enrichment. Is it any wonder employees, shareholders, customers feel aggrieved.
The awards are made by secretive committee.
Employees and Unions see this going on and want some of the action.
There are some really hypocritical CEOs out there, Walsh being a front runner.
When Walsh ran Aer Lingus the Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern described Walsh's offer of an MBO as "a time when management wanted to steal the assets for themselves through a management buy out, shafting staff interests.".
Walsh didn't succeed with Aer Lingus though is having a good try again with BA.
RichHI1 - 20/12/2011 19:08 GMT
There is merit in a lot of these posts but in a way I think the title is kind of right. In a downturn there is more discontent making union members easier to provoke, they also provide cover for unscrupulous management willing to risk their shareholders' capital on pursuing other agendas and you have rise in protectionism and fortress europe type feelings. In such a situation, there have been many becore, a country needs a real leader. The 70's came about as neither Heath nor Callagham were up to the job. My personal belief is that Cameron is not up to the job. Trouble is that even if you look across all the political parties regardless of dogma there are only a handful who have what it takes. These people by and large came into politics when the going was good and being an administrator who did not overcharge their expenses too much and did not rock the boat was enough. We need intelligence, economic and foreign policy awareness, dogged determination, political experience and charisma. If people can be shown a positive future then a lot of the troublemakers find it harder to cause disruption in industry, transport, finance and commerce.
I agree with you Tete. Most plc's have remuneration committees usually ocomposed of exec and non exec directors. From personal experience and from friends who are directors sitting on the committees, it's so often a case of you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours!
Pay should be linked to results, share performance and dividends. This needs shareholder action but those shareholders are again often institutions who of course look to their own pay.
I also think employee's should receive a share of profits by way of a bonus. When I implemented this policy in my business in Holland in the 80's we saw profits rise exponentially and more than paid for the profit share.
Unfortunately the Dutch government saw fit to (unfairly) tax these bonuses at a much higher rate than the basic rate so it has since become a bit of a disincentive.
Ironic but fact - there is no empirical evidence that the level of bonus payments to senior management/executives has an impact on performance.
If Walsh's bonus were doubled would that result in higher performance? Likewise if it were half the level would his performance be any less?
Senior Management/Executive bonuses have more to do with bragging rights than company performance.
Business leaders, these are well worth your time viewing....
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
.. and the book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Drive-Surprising-Truth-About-Motivates/dp/184767769X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1324474108&sr=8-1
