FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Should you be able to strike???

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Ba have won the right to stop the strike again

Good thing or bad???? xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *etitesaraTV/TS
over a year ago

rochdale


"Ba have won the right to stop the strike again

Good thing or bad???? xx"

I believe the right to withold your labour is an intrinsic right of the workforce, however it does seem that Unite keep forgetting to cross the 't's & dot the 'i's with their strike bids.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Absolutely there should be a right to strike if voted by a majority of union members but it looks to me that within BA there is a massive divide between the Heathrow staff and those elsewhere compounded by management belligerence but I am the first to admit I don't know enough of the facts.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *oe_Steve_NWestCouple
over a year ago

Bolton

I think its everyones right to strike but cant see just how useful its gonna be in the case of the BA staff, by the time they have finished none of them will have a job as the company will have lost all its customers so they wont have jobs to strike over.

Steve

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I feel like I'm on strike. Roll on Wednesday

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago

glasgow


"Ba have won the right to stop the strike again

Good thing or bad???? xx"

everybody has the right to strike,but make sure its over something really important.unite are either putting there case over very badly, or are acting like a bunch of spoilt children.all companies must compete to survive.losing a few perks,for survival.seems a small price to pay.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *i 1 Get 1 FreeCouple (MM)
over a year ago

birmingham


"it looks to me that within BA there is a massive divide between the Heathrow staff and those elsewhere "

A great many employees are afraid to strike nowadays for fear of being “targeted” by employers, middle line management are the worst culprits

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

absolutely everyone is entitled to strike.. and I think every major company will take it to the high court....

I can't believe BA got away with this on the tecnicality of not posting people the results of the strike ballot...

I think the courts are making it harder and harder for unions to take what they perceive to be legitimate action

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *leasureDomeMan
over a year ago

all over the place


"absolutely everyone is entitled to strike.. and I think every major company will take it to the high court....

I can't believe BA got away with this on the tecnicality of not posting people the results of the strike ballot...

I think the courts are making it harder and harder for unions to take what they perceive to be legitimate action"

i totally agree, especially as companies deliberately feed mis-information to unions re staff levels and updating details .

I think the courts decision is terrible and i can only hope the appeal is won .

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago

Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else

Let em strike - stand on picket lines looking up at a gigantic cloud of ash....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *istress SassyCouple
over a year ago

manchester

Strikes are incredibly difficult to organise, with the balloting process being a nightmare of hoops that have to be jumped through and processes followed in order for it to be deemed legal.

This latest decision is a scandalous abuse of power of the court, in 'interpreting' the law and in taking away the right to withhold our labour, which lets face it, as working people is our last resort.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *leasureDomeMan
over a year ago

all over the place


"Strikes are incredibly difficult to organise, with the balloting process being a nightmare of hoops that have to be jumped through and processes followed in order for it to be deemed legal.

This latest decision is a scandalous abuse of power of the court, in 'interpreting' the law and in taking away the right to withhold our labour, which lets face it, as working people is our last resort. "

yeah interesting the trouble they take over a union ballot but shrug over a ballot to elect the Government....grrrrrrrrrrrr

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Obviously people have a right to strike.

This is the second time that BA executives have taken court action over technicalities, rather than attempt to negociate with the unions over the issues of the dispute.

BA staff took a massive hit in both pay and in conditions around 2 years ago in order to help BA get through a sticky time, management 'said' that they were realy happy with the response to their request for this voluntary action and that the situation would be reviewed next year (ie last year).

Now management want to further degrade pay and conditions for both flight and ground staff.

I wonder what BA managements complaints are going to be when the courts can't stop a strike after a perfectly legal balot?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's a very fine line between having the right to withdraw labour and holding a company to ransom over the slightest thing. Companies should have some sort of recourse via law to determine whether a strike is legal or not, but having said that, an enduring situation of hostility and resentment is the lasting effect of companies that use the courts to railroad workers into working.

I wasn't aware that BA staff had taken pay reductions two years ago to help the company out, so to have them use the courts to overturn a valid ballot on a technicality is a huge smack in the face to those same workers who helped BA two years ago.

This is a conflict that will not end here and I'd wage that Unite will use strike action in the future for less significant disputes than this. I think BA has made a rod for it's own back.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

You up late xxx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm always up late. I'm campaigning to have the working day reallocated to the hours of midnight - 8am.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

You need to look a little deeper to see why Unite are fighting BA, for a start BA, under Willie Walsh, want to reduce air cabin crew complement on long haul flights.

This would mean a typical BA 747 long haul from Heathrow to Sydney Australia going from 15 crew (current) to 13.

Quantas already have a crew allocation of 17 for the same route.

The current Three day turn around for cabin crew on long haul from London to Sydney would change to Two day, which means cabin crew lose a rest day.

Cabin Crew will also see their complimentary 'Free Flight Bonus' cut by 25% this year with the same reduction in free flights in 2011/12.

And Wishy is quite correct, the BA staff did rescue the company a couple of years ago by forgoing bonuses and wage increases to 'do their bit'.

So some might say that the BA cabin crew will put themselves out of a job, but how much do you have to give in to an employer just to ensure that share holders still keep their dividend?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago

Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else


"

This would mean a typical BA 747 long haul from Heathrow to Sydney Australia going from 15 crew (current) to 13.

Quantas already have a crew allocation of 17 for the same route.

"

How much do Qantas pay?

The reason I ask is that although I don't know as much detail as some of you, I have read elsewhere that BA cabin crew are among the highest paid, on average, in the sky.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago

Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else

On the point of going to court on a technicality...

Do Unions not use technicalities to get their members off accusations of gross misconduct, to get the best possible deal during wage negotiations, etc etc?

I'm not suggesting they shouldn't do those things, just that it's a bit hypocritical to cry "foul" when they get a taste of their own medicine.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"On the point of going to court on a technicality...

Do Unions not use technicalities to get their members off accusations of gross misconduct, to get the best possible deal during wage negotiations, etc etc?

I'm not suggesting they shouldn't do those things, just that it's a bit hypocritical to cry "foul" when they get a taste of their own medicine. "

It's slightly different when a workforce is ordered back to work by a legal technicality during the middle of a dispute when they've voted overwhelmingly for industrial action. What message is BA sending to it's staff?

It's saying, "you are nothing more than slaves to this empire and we will force you to work whichever way we can." - "whilst forcing you to accept a reduced pay packet and conditions at the same time."

I'm sorry, but in this instance, BA's attitude stinks to high heaven.

If I was the leader of Unite, I'd wait the legally required amount of time, stall negotiations in the meantime, and when it is legal to do so I'd ballot the membership again, follow every procedure in the book and then call an all out stoppage. I am positive that faced with £m of lost revenue per day, coupled with the ground costs of keeping airplanes in terminus, BA would cave in before the Union did, and Unite would probably have the support of the public the next time too.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago

Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else

Given that they've already had one strike overthrown on a technicality, you have to wonder why they didn't already produce a "100% accurate ballot" (sorry if that's a slight misquote) on this occasion.

And I don't accept that BA is necessarily the "big bully" once it hits the courts. A union the size of Unite has plenty of resources too.

(Not that they shouldn't - I just see this as a little more levelled out once it's my lawyer vs your lawyer.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Of course you should have the right to strike but you should also think about if it will have a long term effect on your job. All the BA staff are doing is driving people away from BA and so might end up in loosing their own job in the long run.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

iv worked with people that lazy they were on permenant strike.... have been on strike a few times myself bet that shocked ya all lol!!

united we stand.........

for ba i would be worried though cause it could go right down the tubes and be out of a job completely and gonna say this and il accept the abuse for it, but the trade union act 84 will likely get tougher under cam unless nickola objects it we all know the tory perspective on the rights of the worker etc!!

abuse to usual address!! xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay


"Of course you should have the right to strike but you should also think about if it will have a long term effect on your job. All the BA staff are doing is driving people away from BA and so might end up in loosing their own job in the long run."

Then you are suggesting they suck up any shit that BA throw at them?

Willie Walsh has absolutely no intention of negotiating with the Unite union, when he ran Aer Lingus he cut 2,500 jobs.

Aer Lingus were criticised by the EU for constantly breaking air safety regulations as regards cabin crew staffing.

Whether or not BA staff are highly paid or not is irrelavent, they have earned those wage rates over a number of years service.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Of course you should have the right to strike but you should also think about if it will have a long term effect on your job. All the BA staff are doing is driving people away from BA and so might end up in loosing their own job in the long run.

Then you are suggesting they suck up any shit that BA throw at them?

Willie Walsh has absolutely no intention of negotiating with the Unite union, when he ran Aer Lingus he cut 2,500 jobs.

Aer Lingus were criticised by the EU for constantly breaking air safety regulations as regards cabin crew staffing.

Whether or not BA staff are highly paid or not is irrelavent, they have earned those wage rates over a number of years service."

No don't be so melodramatic! If someone don't like their job then its simple! Move on.

As for rights earned! Under current conditions when so many over the past few years have had pay cuts to keep jobs going its old fashioned and greedy to hang on to unfair pay bonuses.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay


"Of course you should have the right to strike but you should also think about if it will have a long term effect on your job. All the BA staff are doing is driving people away from BA and so might end up in loosing their own job in the long run.

Then you are suggesting they suck up any shit that BA throw at them?

Willie Walsh has absolutely no intention of negotiating with the Unite union, when he ran Aer Lingus he cut 2,500 jobs.

Aer Lingus were criticised by the EU for constantly breaking air safety regulations as regards cabin crew staffing.

Whether or not BA staff are highly paid or not is irrelavent, they have earned those wage rates over a number of years service.

No don't be so melodramatic! If someone don't like their job then its simple! Move on.

As for rights earned! Under current conditions when so many over the past few years have had pay cuts to keep jobs going its old fashioned and greedy to hang on to unfair pay bonuses.

"

'Old Fashioned' and 'Greedy' to hold onto pay bonuses?

Who is to say they are 'Unfair'?

Many bonuses have been agreed in lieu of wage rises, for your information BA Cabin Crew took an attendance bonus instead of a basic wage rise for two years running at BA to save the company from collapse, now the company is back in the black Willie Walsh wants to renage on these attendance bonuses and other perks of the job.

He also wants to cut Cabin Crew 'lay-over' on long haul flights, this rest period is there for a reason. Cabin Crew are on their feet constantly during a long haul flight, they often don't take rest breaks that the rest of us take for granted in our jobs.

If Willie Walsh had his way Cabin Crew would lose their 'lay-over' completely, are we to go back to the days of people being expected to be grateful for having a job?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Of course you should have the right to strike but you should also think about if it will have a long term effect on your job. All the BA staff are doing is driving people away from BA and so might end up in loosing their own job in the long run.

Then you are suggesting they suck up any shit that BA throw at them?

Willie Walsh has absolutely no intention of negotiating with the Unite union, when he ran Aer Lingus he cut 2,500 jobs.

Aer Lingus were criticised by the EU for constantly breaking air safety regulations as regards cabin crew staffing.

Whether or not BA staff are highly paid or not is irrelavent, they have earned those wage rates over a number of years service.

No don't be so melodramatic! If someone don't like their job then its simple! Move on.

As for rights earned! Under current conditions when so many over the past few years have had pay cuts to keep jobs going its old fashioned and greedy to hang on to unfair pay bonuses.

'Old Fashioned' and 'Greedy' to hold onto pay bonuses?

Who is to say they are 'Unfair'?

Many bonuses have been agreed in lieu of wage rises, for your information BA Cabin Crew took an attendance bonus instead of a basic wage rise for two years running at BA to save the company from collapse, now the company is back in the black Willie Walsh wants to renage on these attendance bonuses and other perks of the job.

He also wants to cut Cabin Crew 'lay-over' on long haul flights, this rest period is there for a reason. Cabin Crew are on their feet constantly during a long haul flight, they often don't take rest breaks that the rest of us take for granted in our jobs.

If Willie Walsh had his way Cabin Crew would lose their 'lay-over' completely, are we to go back to the days of people being expected to be grateful for having a job?

"

The minimum 4 hour pay even if its for 30 mins isn't really fair when its doubled if its a day off.

Why should people who are on pay freezes or guts have to pay higher fairs to line the pockets of the greedy?

The answer is simple. If BA staff don't like conditions then leave and go work for someone else.

I still think all should have the right to strike but the airline industry isn't thriving right now and and it looks like they are biting the hand that feeds to me.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As frequent long haul passengers with BA, i have to say the cabin crew do a great job... cattle class ( thats us ) must be a difficult job to do.... maybe not as difficult as having to "suck-up" tot the 1sy & business class wallahs tho..

But how anyone can deny a working class person, the right to withdraw their labour is beyond me...

Willie Walsh is a typical bullyboy British manager, he wud have kids up chimneys again given half a chance...

The courts... mmmmm well we all know what happens there.... commit a white collar crim & it`s Jail..... murder somebody & get a community service order....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

If we are not careful more and more companies will start to play this hand....

Times are hard so lets all work for nothing?

The minimum Four hour agreement is there for a reason and the reason is this....

During rest days cabin crew are often offered 'Stand By Duty', this consists of a full crew sitting for Four hours in a flight crew lounge to cover potential staff shortages, late running, or sickness.

After this four hour standby BA are permitted, under negotiated agreement, to ask the crew to stay on stand by if a crew shortage for an upcoming flight looks likely.

The negotiated agreement is that this extended stand by shift should be paid for Four hours, however in some cases the crew shortage doesn't materialise and the stand by crew are no longer needed....but still get their four hours pay.

The alternative?.....crews refuse to agree to an extended standby and go home instead and a flight potentially gets cancelled.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"If we are not careful more and more companies will start to play this hand....

Times are hard so lets all work for nothing?

The minimum Four hour agreement is there for a reason and the reason is this....

During rest days cabin crew are often offered 'Stand By Duty', this consists of a full crew sitting for Four hours in a flight crew lounge to cover potential staff shortages, late running, or sickness.

After this four hour standby BA are permitted, under negotiated agreement, to ask the crew to stay on stand by if a crew shortage for an upcoming flight looks likely.

The negotiated agreement is that this extended stand by shift should be paid for Four hours, however in some cases the crew shortage doesn't materialise and the stand by crew are no longer needed....but still get their four hours pay.

The alternative?.....crews refuse to agree to an extended standby and go home instead and a flight potentially gets cancelled.

"

So your saying ALL airlines pay this then?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

thats the problem, the worker just lies down because of the fear of losing their job etc and then things get bloody worse and no one will stand up and say this isnt on, but the ones that do get lambasted for it!!

see when we all working god knows many hrs for the minimum wage, with no pay rise , no staff perks or bonuses you know who to blame! x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"thats the problem, the worker just lies down because of the fear of losing their job etc and then things get bloody worse and no one will stand up and say this isnt on, but the ones that do get lambasted for it!!

see when we all working god knows many hrs for the minimum wage, with no pay rise , no staff perks or bonuses you know who to blame! x"

Its compromise that's needed. Give on both sides.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"thats the problem, the worker just lies down because of the fear of losing their job etc and then things get bloody worse and no one will stand up and say this isnt on, but the ones that do get lambasted for it!!

see when we all working god knows many hrs for the minimum wage, with no pay rise , no staff perks or bonuses you know who to blame! x

Its compromise that's needed. Give on both sides."

its gettin the compromise that the difficult bit!! someone mentioned sacrifising willie walsh to the volcano.... xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *atisfy janeWoman
over a year ago

Torquay

It is a common industry practice, the ones that don't are generally budget airlines like Ryan Air and Easy Jet....

Which is why Ryan Air and Easy Jet cancel many more flights than the big boys in the industry.

American Airlines and Emirates pay far more than BA and have far better cabin crew pay conditions, they have longer crew lay-overs as do Quantas.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As a basic principal I think it goes against fundamental human rights to deny the BA crews the right to strike.

I think both sides in the dispute need to have a big helping of reality pie.

The management are arrogant bullies and the Crews have no idea what a good deal they are one.

Virgin got it right a few years back. But Walsh is no Branson.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've just returned from attending several conferences serviced by my staff.

We represent civil servants, those oft maligned workers who the public see as having cushy numbers.

Listening to a grown man who was suspended from duty for doing nothing more than going to the toilet was heart breaking. How many here would work a 12 hour shift on your own and not being allowed to go to the loo?!! When he complained he was told there are hundreds willing to take his place.

People in jobs are afraid and employers know that: withdrawing one's labour is the only option to stop the decline of employers abusing workers!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Surely his human rights were breached here, not his employment rights. This company must have been acting illegally to sack a guy for going for a piss?

Who'd want to work for an employer like that anyway. I'd have lumped the twat and walked out with a smug sense of self satisfaction.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouvakMan
over a year ago

clacton on sea

on the subject of "if you don't like your job, go find another" WHERES THE JOB MAKING FAIRY GODMOTHER" there are over 2.5 million people out there for whom there are no jobs. WHERE ARE THESE NEW FOR OLD JOBS. i search the various internet sites every day and i'm yet to see anyone offering any jobs let alone new for old

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

How about a walk around town and asking every factory on the ind estates, or on retial parks. It's a numbers game and I'm sure one would give you a start. Relying on the internet seems a pretty lazy way of getting a job in my opinion and if I was an employer I'd be more impressed with someone who got off his arse and came cold calling than someone firing off endless cv's.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yeah i think u should ask "DARTH VADER" that question see wot he says-----He tell ya-

"THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK"!! LOL ROFLAMO

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Surely his human rights were breached here, not his employment rights. This company must have been acting illegally to sack a guy for going for a piss?

Who'd want to work for an employer like that anyway. I'd have lumped the twat and walked out with a smug sense of self satisfaction."

Wishy...his employer? MoD!!!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Surely his human rights were breached here, not his employment rights. This company must have been acting illegally to sack a guy for going for a piss?

Who'd want to work for an employer like that anyway. I'd have lumped the twat and walked out with a smug sense of self satisfaction.

Wishy...his employer? MoD!!! "

Was he in security by chance? I can imagine leaving a post unattended to go for a leak may be classed as a breach of security but there must have been extenuating circumstances surely?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouvakMan
over a year ago

clacton on sea


"How about a walk around town and asking every factory on the ind estates, or on retial parks. It's a numbers game and I'm sure one would give you a start. Relying on the internet seems a pretty lazy way of getting a job in my opinion and if I was an employer I'd be more impressed with someone who got off his arse and came cold calling than someone firing off endless cv's."

I've done the cold call thing I've done the postal thing I've even taken the odd step of an ad in the local press in the employment section ( supplied free by the paper I might add)asking local employer's for work if they were interested, and also you go to the job centre and how do you find a job there " on the internet" it's all computerized these days so why pay out to travel to the job centre daily when you can do it from home, "PLEASE DON'T ACCUSE THOSE WHO ARE WILLING TO WORK OF NOT PUTTING IN THE EFFORT" I've lost count the amount I have spent on posting CV s to prospective employers,with return of post envelopes enclosed only never to receive even the polite reply of " sorry not jobs at this time, but you'll be held on file" I've even gone to old employers from my past to " put the foot through the door" with no success, but by chance on a day out of the blue and doing something totally non job related, I may have found a job by accident, so you see it's not what you do or who you know it's a case of right place right time,

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouvakMan
over a year ago

clacton on sea

looking for work is a 40 hour a week unpaid job lol

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Surely his human rights were breached here, not his employment rights. This company must have been acting illegally to sack a guy for going for a piss?

Who'd want to work for an employer like that anyway. I'd have lumped the twat and walked out with a smug sense of self satisfaction.

Wishy...his employer? MoD!!!

Was he in security by chance? I can imagine leaving a post unattended to go for a leak may be classed as a breach of security but there must have been extenuating circumstances surely?"

Yes...military guard.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

2rite matey i agree 500% !

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"2rite matey i agree 500% !"

It is impossible to give more than 100%.

101% means you are making an effort beyond your actual capacity. Even if you are making more effort than was previously possible for you, then in fact your ‘effort output’ has increased, but you’re still giving 100% (though an effort level you may previously have described as 80% is now recalibrated as a 79% effort!).

Once we uncap the limit on effort, and permit beyond 100%, then watch the inflation effect, it’ll be 1000% effort or a million, or a billion or a googleplex percent effort – where’s the cap? It is meaningless. Of course you could say, I’ll give 200% of my usual average effort levels, yet this too is rather strange, and means the effort you’re giving now simply depends on your past effort levels, so a lazy devil giving 300% is making less effort than a constantly committed person at 80%.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *i 1 Get 1 FreeCouple (MM)
over a year ago

birmingham


"How about a walk around town and asking every factory on the ind estates, or on retial parks. It's a numbers game and I'm sure one would give you a start. Relying on the internet seems a pretty lazy way of getting a job in my opinion and if I was an employer I'd be more impressed with someone who got off his arse and came cold calling than someone firing off endless cv's."

Wishy, I'm not going to fall out or be disrespectful to you, but do you have any idea what it's like out there trying to find employment?

I'm not the first nor the last person to knock on a companies door and ask about potential vacancies, if one can get past reception employees that's half the battle, let me tell you how difficult it really is, IT'S SOLE DESTROYING!!

Never in a million years did I ever believe I would find myself in this situation, I've spent a fortune on postage alone, sending my CV to companies, I've also included a stamped addressed envelope with each on speck application, the majority don't even use the pre paid envelope, I've tried the cold calling business, again, one can't past the person who answers the phone, research, yeh, I've researched every potential employer I've wrote to, I've cold called the company first, pretending to hold a fund raising event, and requested the name of a director to contact in writing, I've then used that contact name with my application, I've yet to receive an acknowledgement to the majority of my applications.

Walk round cold calling on companies, yeh, I've done it, I've walked a 3 mile radius of where I live asking about employment, how far do you want me to walk? We're not talking of a Jarrow march from the thirties, a round trip into the city centre costs £4.00, or £3.70 day saver, calculate that over a week trying to find employment, still think it's easy Wishy, course you do, oh yeh, and as sole destroying as it is being unemployed, let me tell you, I've considered going back and doing voluntary work in an attempt to keep some kind of sanity in my life, guess what Wishy, I can't do voluntary work, should my time be occupied helping / assisting others, that means I'm not available / looking for employment, Wishy, get the picture now? it really is a bundle of joy being unemployed.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"How about a walk around town and asking every factory on the ind estates, or on retial parks. It's a numbers game and I'm sure one would give you a start. Relying on the internet seems a pretty lazy way of getting a job in my opinion and if I was an employer I'd be more impressed with someone who got off his arse and came cold calling than someone firing off endless cv's.

Wishy, I'm not going to fall out or be disrespectful to you, but do you have any idea what it's like out there trying to find employment?

I'm not the first nor the last person to knock on a companies door and ask about potential vacancies, if one can get past reception employees that's half the battle, let me tell you how difficult it really is, IT'S SOLE DESTROYING!!

Never in a million years did I ever believe I would find myself in this situation, I've spent a fortune on postage alone, sending my CV to companies, I've also included a stamped addressed envelope with each on speck application, the majority don't even use the pre paid envelope, I've tried the cold calling business, again, one can't past the person who answers the phone, research, yeh, I've researched every potential employer I've wrote to, I've cold called the company first, pretending to hold a fund raising event, and requested the name of a director to contact in writing, I've then used that contact name with my application, I've yet to receive an acknowledgement to the majority of my applications.

Walk round cold calling on companies, yeh, I've done it, I've walked a 3 mile radius of where I live asking about employment, how far do you want me to walk? We're not talking of a Jarrow march from the thirties, a round trip into the city centre costs £4.00, or £3.70 day saver, calculate that over a week trying to find employment, still think it's easy Wishy, course you do, oh yeh, and as sole destroying as it is being unemployed, let me tell you, I've considered going back and doing voluntary work in an attempt to keep some kind of sanity in my life, guess what Wishy, I can't do voluntary work, should my time be occupied helping / assisting others, that means I'm not available / looking for employment, Wishy, get the picture now? it really is a bundle of joy being unemployed. "

feel for ya mate, I had 2 months of that back in 2008, and they way you get treated in job centres, I was close to suicide

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

not sure if stikes are really valid whenpeople are out of work.

in the 70 the workers had to stick together as there was no other way but now with employment laws etc it all seems a bit silly.

making your point by bankrupting the company you work for seems a bit short sited to me, those with good jobs and from what ive heard working for ba is not all bad, they should think of all the people on the dole who would kill for there jobs, and driving to a picket line in a new audi as i saw on the news makes a mockery of the whole thing

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *heAddamsCouple
over a year ago

corbridge

with regards to the original question, it is an absolute farce that the court granted the injunction.

It arises purely because the union failed to mention that there were 11 spoilt ballot papers. Out of over 5000 people who voted. And of which there was an 81% majority in favour of strike action.

So because the union failed to give details of those 11 idiots who could not even put a cross in the right place, Willie walsh gets his injunction.

Those 11 papers are less that 0.2% of the total vote.

Willie Walsh may have won the battle, but his conduct will cause him to lose the war.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"not sure if stikes are really valid whenpeople are out of work.

in the 70 the workers had to stick together as there was no other way but now with employment laws etc it all seems a bit silly.

making your point by bankrupting the company you work for seems a bit short sited to me, those with good jobs and from what ive heard working for ba is not all bad, they should think of all the people on the dole who would kill for there jobs, and driving to a picket line in a new audi as i saw on the news makes a mockery of the whole thing"

It's attitudes like yours that employers count on. Workers bullied and threathened.

What you fail to recognise the people they do give the jobs to are immigrants who won't join trade unions and who will work for next to nothing.

Is that really what you want?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"not sure if stikes are really valid whenpeople are out of work.

in the 70 the workers had to stick together as there was no other way but now with employment laws etc it all seems a bit silly.

making your point by bankrupting the company you work for seems a bit short sited to me, those with good jobs and from what ive heard working for ba is not all bad, they should think of all the people on the dole who would kill for there jobs, and driving to a picket line in a new audi as i saw on the news makes a mockery of the whole thing

It's attitudes like yours that employers count on. Workers bullied and threathened.

What you fail to recognise the people they do give the jobs to are immigrants who won't join trade unions and who will work for next to nothing.

Is that really what you want? "

im sure alot of people think the same but look what happened in the 70s when unions had real power was it better for the workers in the long run? no it wasnt it almost banckrupt the country. unions are a thing of the past and not needed in todays working life.

cant you see the damage this is doing to ba? what happens to the jobs when the company goes under because of the strikes?????

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"not sure if stikes are really valid whenpeople are out of work.

in the 70 the workers had to stick together as there was no other way but now with employment laws etc it all seems a bit silly.

making your point by bankrupting the company you work for seems a bit short sited to me, those with good jobs and from what ive heard working for ba is not all bad, they should think of all the people on the dole who would kill for there jobs, and driving to a picket line in a new audi as i saw on the news makes a mockery of the whole thing

It's attitudes like yours that employers count on. Workers bullied and threathened.

What you fail to recognise the people they do give the jobs to are immigrants who won't join trade unions and who will work for next to nothing.

Is that really what you want?

im sure alot of people think the same but look what happened in the 70s when unions had real power was it better for the workers in the long run? no it wasnt it almost banckrupt the country. unions are a thing of the past and not needed in todays working life.

cant you see the damage this is doing to ba? what happens to the jobs when the company goes under because of the strikes?????"

are you a boss or company owner by any chance??

the way things are goin unions are goin to be needed more than ever! the workers rights are slowly gettin eroded and the large amount of unemployed means that people will always be there willing to work longer for less and with less benefits xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *i 1 Get 1 FreeCouple (MM)
over a year ago

birmingham


"unions are a thing of the past and not needed in todays working life.

"

Unions are required more today than ever before, far to many employers have the attitude “there's the door” no one denies the financial state the Country is in, but to many employers are using the credit crunch as an excuse to screw the workforce,halt on pay rises / halt on increasing the workforce, forcing additional stress on existing employees, complain about one's workload and one either becomes labelled or is advised to look elsewhere, not every employee is willing to stand up and be counted, some require a “spokes-person”

I've had to employee an employment solicitor to represent me due to my previous employer not complying with legislation whilst going through a redundancy programme, that situation wouldn't have happened had I been a member of a union.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ouvakMan
over a year ago

clacton on sea

To Those who think union's are unnecessary in the modern working environment, check out the HSE reports which have the complete backing of those union's, thousands of workers who are injured through bad work practises receive compensation fought for by union lawyer's, of whom many wouldn't have had the means or whereby to have the use of them,terms and conditions of employment in unionised work place's are far more implicated than in non unionised work place's, ok there have been times in the past where the union has gone over the top, but it is still one of the best watchdogs in industry today, every shop-steward has to go on course's to learn and acquaint himself with safe working practise's and the health and safety at work code, as well as the working time directive,and many other parts of the employment law, he becomes the buffer between the worker and the management and has to be a good negotiator and understand that every story has two side's all this is done unpaid and often in his own time, often after working a night shift, or on a rest day, the union in a way is the work place policeman making sure that both sides do the job they are there to do the worker to give the employer the best service for the wage he is paid, and to ensure the employer gives the employee the best working conditions under which to work, at the end of the day all union reps have to be semi impartial able to work both sides to get the best for both. take them out of the work place and you end up with sweatshops where people fear for their job, there's no way we want to go back to the 19th century

OOh and remember that the HSE go to the unions for advice on safety issues in the work place too

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sheesh! All I said was take a walk around town and ask in person. You make it sound like I've committed some sort of cardinal fucking sin by daring to suggest that everyone out of work can easily find a job. I know how hard it is when you're looking and nothing comes up. Which was why I took a walk and went into every building site I found and asked for labouring work - and it paid off. Ok, it wasn't a fortune but it kept the wolves at bay, and it wasn't in my chosen field but I didn't have the luxury of waiting around for telecoms work to come up - I had to earn and it had to be enough to keep the roof over my head and food in my daughter's mouth. I'd have shovelled shit if it meant she got fed, clothed and a bed for the night. Sheesh!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *he_original_poloWoman
over a year ago

a Primark shoebox in Leicester

Unions are required less than ever…. as more and more companies are governed by EU directives which the unions have little if any influence over.

We once needed unions to be a voice (not necessarily a listened to voice – but a voice nevertheless) … there are plenty of large corporations which don’t have any recognised trade unions… but they comply with the EU by having employee forums.

You don’t need union funded lawyers to help you with injury claims where the employer is in some way liable…. there are no win no fee lawyers queuing up for that business.

The trade unions don’t enforce employment legislation; ACAS and the HSE do… if it’s not covered by one of those there’ll be a whistle-blowers hotline somewhere.

We once needed trade unions to make sure people were not disciplined or sacked unfairly…. there’s a statutory requirement these days to follow at least a minimum requirement procedure; should a company not have a better (fairer) one in place.

Grievances need to be heard too… otherwise a company faces instantly loosing a tribunal for failure to adhere to statutory requirements.

Sure there are some sweatshops – there always has been and always will be.

Larger reputable companies want to boast they are IiP accredited, Employers of Choice, take Social Responsibility and so on to attract talent. There may be high unemployment, but they know the real financial cost of recruitment and will have targets to reduce turnover and retain skills which are scarce.

Scaremonger that we will all be working for minimum wage in sweatshops is pretty much all ‘some’ of the Trade Unions have left as a membership recruitment tool ….. as their membership numbers continue to decline.

The fact of the matter is… most of the things Trade Unions once had the monopoly of offering are out there for all employees to get free of charge.

And finally…. would you really trust a Trade Union to get it right when it comes to your personal needs, you job, your best interest, when they can’t even remember to enter the number of spoilt votes… a fundamental requirement for ballots since as long as I can remember and I have been involved in conducting a few of them in my time.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago

Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else


"

Wishy, I'm not going to fall out or be disrespectful to you, but do you have any idea what it's like out there trying to find employment?

"

Fair play for stating your case so eloquently. It took me back to the period when I was in the same situation, and I sympathise. The second time I had to go to the Job Centre to sign on, I swore to myself it would never happen again. and with an element of luck, that's been true since - I spent around 18 months in various temp jobs, ending up with my current employer just over 5 years ago.

And now, I'm on the other side of the fence - fielding CVs from agencies and individuals who are more qualified and more experienced than me, looking to do jobs that are two grades down from me. This serves to remind me how lucky I've been, and how hard I'll have to work to keep those people from replacing me.

I'd hate to be in that position in these difficult times.

BUT...I have to say that I could almost guarantee that there's a fast food joint within five miles of me that isn't fully staffed. I'd just have to decide if minimum wage claiming benefit, which isn't necessarily the case, I admit.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago

Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else


"Unions are required less than ever…. as more and more companies are governed by EU directives which the unions have little if any influence over.

"

This is an interesting point. A lot of our workforce are unionised, but corporately speaking, we're more concerned with tribunals.

Unions tend to be there to give the impression that they're doing their best to their members - "look lads, we got you 3%" when 3% was all they'd ever have got anyway, and all that's really happened is a ritualistic dance between management (opening bid - there's a recession) and the union (opening bid - we deserve 25%) that's more like the Monty Python haggling sketch than actual negotiation.

There is one ex-employee currently suing us. He is not unionised, has no case whatsoever (you'll have to trust me on that!), but will probably get paid off as that's cheaper than successfully defending in court. If he was in the union, they'd probably have talked him out of it, and quite rightly so. So he's better off not being in the union.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top