And yet ANOTHER strike ....

[Murray 17]

What cliched crap that is. Pay people a reasonable amount of money to live on and treat people with it bit of respect. If companies did that I think you'd find more people wouldn't have to go on strike as a matter of last resort.

I'm not against strikes per se, but there needs to be a limit. At the moment unions can strike as much as they like, providing they hold a ballot etc.

What would be your reaction if all hospital staff went on strike for 6 consecutive days, or teachers? Then another 3 days, then another 3 days ...

There would be uproar on here, and no support for unions then, I'm sure.

 

[The Clamp]

They should have worked harder at school if they wanted to earn money. You work hard, you get your qualifications, you get a job, you gain experience, you work your way up. What you don't do is not gain qualifications, get a job in a low skilled or vocational skilled but essential industry and the blackmail your way to a higher wage.

 

[drew]

They should have worked harder at school if they wanted to earn money. You work hard, you get your qualifications, you get a job, you gain experience, you work your way up. What you don't do is not gain qualifications, get a job in a low skilled or vocational skilled but essential industry and the blackmail your way to a higher wage.

 

[drew]

I'm not against strikes per se, but there needs to be a limit. At the moment unions can strike as much as they like, providing they hold a ballot etc.

What would be your reaction if all hospital staff went on strike for 6 consecutive days, or teachers? Then another 3 days, then another 3 days ...

There would be uproar on here, and no support for unions then, I'm sure.

Despite what you say, I get the impression that you are against strikes when they are inconvenient, which is actually the point. It is a lot harder for unions to take industrial action these days as proper ballots have to be taken, not just a show of hands at a meeting as in the old days. In the bad old days, 27m days were lost to strikes/industrial action but in 2014 it was only 788k (2012 was 249k and 2013 444k)

 

[drew]

Brexit voter I guess?

You ask if I know how society works? I ask if you understand simple economics? Your employer has to budget for costs v profit (try it sometime), if he/she can afford a pay rise then all is cool in the world, but if they cannot afford it you throw your toys out of the pram because YOUR costs have increased. Please do explain your moral high ground..........

You seem to ignore the scenarios where employers make a profit and still don't give a pay rise to their staff that have contributed to the making of that profit.

 

[The Clamp]

You seem to ignore the scenarios where employers make a profit and still don't give a pay rise to their staff that have contributed to the making of that profit.

Were they told at the time of application that their pay directly correlates to company profit.
Not against performance based pay rises or bonus but it is not a god given right. A job pays a certain amount. Take the job or don't. The only thing I expect is that a wage stays roughly in line with inflation.

 

[happypig]

In 2009 or 2010 we balloted for industrial action. The company had declared quite handsome profits but had said that, as they weren't quite as handsome as they'd have liked, they couldn't afford to give us a payrise. People were indignant and a ballot was held and the majority voted for action "up to and including withdrawal of labour".
The company realised that we'd called their bluff and blinked first, finally agreeing to a decent 3 year deal.
Most reasonable companies bend over backwards to avoid industrial action and, if it occurs, bend even further to resolve it; then there's SASTA who are wholly paid by (Tory) HMG who are clearly picking a fight in an attempt to break the RMT/ASLEF. Those poor *******s having to use the trains (fortunately I'm not one of them) are collateral damage that Chris Grayling and his henchmen are willing to see suffer for their cause.

 

[drew]

Were they told at the time of application that their pay directly correlates to company profit.
Not against performance based pay rises or bonus but it is not a god given right. A job pays a certain amount. Take the job or don't. The only thing I expect is that a wage stays roughly in line with inflation.

I never said it was a god given right but morally speaking, if a company makes a profit then commonsense would suggest that some of it is shared with the workers. That may be what makes the difference between a good employer and a poor one. If your employees are motivated then probably more chance of continuing to make future profits.

 

[The Clamp]

I never said it was a god given right but morally speaking, if a company makes a profit then commonsense would suggest that some of it is shared with the workers. That may be what makes the difference between a good employer and a poor one. If your employees are motivated then probably more chance of continuing to make future profits.

Well yes. Lovely f they do. The majority don't. If a worker is being compensated fairly for their labour they should stop whinging.

 

[Diablo]

I never said it was a god given right but morally speaking, if a company makes a profit then commonsense would suggest that some of it is shared with the workers. That may be what makes the difference between a good employer and a poor one. If your employees are motivated then probably more chance of continuing to make future profits.

Tricky one.Whilst I do agree high profits in given year could be shared out..What happens when company has bad couple of years..Workers share the loss ? Doubt that would go down well with workers or Union.

 

[wellquickwoody]

You seem to ignore the scenarios where employers make a profit and still don't give a pay rise to their staff that have contributed to the making of that profit.

A profit, yes a profit. That is what a business is supposed to do, if it doesn't then it will go under and jobs disappear. If it makes a good profit then perhaps everyone can share a little of the success, but it is the expectation that people should automatically get a pay rise just for doing what they are paid for anyway that sucks. A business also has rising costs, so for people to say they need/want more money without showing why they deserve it is just plain stupid.

 

[beorhthelm]

Most reasonable companies bend over backwards to avoid industrial action and, if it occurs, bend even further to resolve it; then there's SASTA who are wholly paid by (Tory) HMG who are clearly picking a fight in an attempt to break the RMT/ASLEF.

if this is true, ask yourself why they'd want to pick a fight with RMT and ASLEF? would it be because they are constantly in some industrial dispute? at least on the underground they have a rolling programme of industrial action, and since reading their PR found they frequently have ballots around the country. they use strikes as part of their standard negotiation process, not as a last resort.

 

[The Clamp]

A profit, yes a profit. That is what a business is supposed to do, if it doesn't then it will go under and jobs disappear. If it makes a good profit then perhaps everyone can share a little of the success, but it is the expectation that people should automatically get a pay rise just for doing what they are paid for anyway that sucks. A business also has rising costs, so for people to say they need/want more money without showing why they deserve it is just plain stupid.

Quite right. Nobody is being conned in most jobs. Yes, there are the Green's of this world but most companies hire you on a wage and rise to cover inflation. I expect nothing more from an employer.

 

[Murray 17]

Despite what you say, I get the impression that you are against strikes when they are inconvenient, which is actually the point.

I would say that the rail unions have upped the ante so much now that it is past just inconvenient. The baggage handlers' strike is inconvenient, the rail unions have lost people their jobs, closed down businesses and put pressure on family life.

 

[Captain Sensible]

I can assure you that even if these companies gave a 1 % above inflation pay rise each year it wouldn't be enough for a union backed workforce, they would always want more!

You have no basis for saying that. If a company was struggling there may be agreeable temporary wage cuts or freezes. In my last job, I myself was union backed (as you put it) took a pay cut in year 1 and a pay freeze for 2 years after the financial crash in 2008. Employees only want to be kept up with inflation or if the company is extremely successful, a small reward of a pay rises to recognise their work. Incentive provides for a happy efficient workforce. Unions are the employees themselves. The large parent union only steps in after a dispute is registered by the smaller branch of employees. In all of the strikes announced I believe there has been no pay rise for a long time, barring Southern where it's about jobs.
So you have no problem with BA for your holiday, but Swissport operating at Gatwick means you might have issues. Outsourcing is a bit crap isn't it?

 

[beorhthelm]

You have no basis for saying that.

except the evidence of disputes. look at this airport staff dispute, no pay rise since 2015, now a rise of 4.65% covering the period and next year. thats above inflation, but the union wants more. unions role is to get the best deal of course, but if company offers inflation they will therefore demand inflation +x, offer inflation +x and they'll demand inflation+xx. rarely will they accept first offer, lest they risk appearing to be unnecessary.

 

[sir albion]

Swissport making £2bn profit yet no pay rise since 2014 and talks stalled since 2015. I'd say the wankers are on the company side of the table.

This is the problem throughout the country and it needs sorting

 

[happypig]

if this is true, ask yourself why they'd want to pick a fight with RMT and ASLEF? would it be because they are constantly in some industrial dispute? at least on the underground they have a rolling programme of industrial action, and since reading their PR found they frequently have ballots around the country. they use strikes as part of their standard negotiation process, not as a last resort.

They didn't pick RMT/ASLEF and engineer a dispute, but once there was a dispute, they have engineered it so that it escalates.
Turn it on it's head and ask yourself why Chris Grayling isn't intervening; he could step in, crack a few heads and suspend further DOO until an independent report is completed. The independent report, conveniently, takes a long time and SASTA are replaced with a more efficient franchise (run by the Chuckle brothers perhaps).
Grayling's constant refusal to lay any of the blame at Southern's feet speaks volumes.

 

[Captain Sensible]

except the evidence of disputes. look at this airport staff dispute, no pay rise since 2015, now a rise of 4.65% covering the period and next year. thats above inflation, but the union wants more. unions role is to get the best deal of course, but if company offers inflation they will therefore demand inflation +x, offer inflation +x and they'll demand inflation+xx. rarely will they accept first offer, lest they risk appearing to be unnecessary.

I don't know the particular case and unless you know someone in it I suggest you don't either. 4.65% is 2.325% a year, slightly above inflation. But if you add in the year before the rises it's below. Do you know if the deal offered is also conditional on any changes in working practices or employee productivity demands or performance related? Don't always believe everything you hear reported, sometimes you are only hearing part of the issue.

 

[beorhthelm]

I don't know the particular case and unless you know someone in it I suggest you don't either. 4.65% is 2.325% a year, slightly above inflation. But if you add in the year before the rises it's below.

it isnt below, its above the cumlative inflation for the past year and forecast for next. the union said so themselves "barely above inflation", 2015 was 0.9 and this year 1.2, leaving 2.55 for the coming year. the union themselves arent citing any changes to working conditions, just the pay increase.