If you want to get people on your side then striking over Christmas does not seem the best way to go about it. But that is just what BA cabin crew are doing, affecting up to 1 million people, from December 22nd to January 2nd.
Apparently BA staff are paid twice as much as Virgin Airlines. Now, I don't know about the airline industry, but a general rule seems to be that Virgin pay their staff well, so I assume that BA staff are on a very good deal. It appears that the cabin service director of a long haul flight earns £56k a year. Is it any surprise then that BA feel they need to reduce the number of cabin crew. It would seem to be that or to reduce pay. BA are losing money, they need to do something.
At least one occassional reader of this blog will probably come back at me on this, but I have never understood stirke action. Take a beleagured company and make life even harder for it, yes that sounds such a good idea. In the case of BA, a company that is floundering will now have a high percentage of its customers driven away to other airlines. People who have lost their savings and not been able to go on a long anticipated holiday will not fly BA again. Business men will think twice of flying with BA if there is a risk that they might strike. So BA is plunged into further troubles. In the case of Corus, they need to close a plant because it isn't making money. Striking will cause the company more problems and then lead to increased threat to other jobs elsewhere in other plants.
They say that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Well there is also no such thing as a free strike. Those striking, and their colleagues, will always end up paying in the long run.
6 comments:
However, as BA's main custom is business people, striking over Christmas seems a better option to avoid alienating people - you are much less likely to be doing a business trip over Christmas so less likely to be directly affected and put off using BA for further business trips.
Striking is always a difficult decision. I don't think it's done with the intention of further harming a beleaguered company. It's usually more to do with staff feeling that the company are acting unreasonably.
But those business people also take holidays. And you are probably more alienated if your hoiliday is disrupted than your business trip (at least I would be!)
Of course the intention is not to cause further harm. But that is the actual result. It is done from a feeling of dissatisfaction as you say, but it is a knee jerk reaction, a hitting out. It doesn't have logic behind it. And it isn't supported by a viable alternative - it is simply "I don't like what you are doing so I am going to strike".
Strikes are always supported by an alternative - there's always the negotiations and discussions beforehand during which both sides put forward their view. I think, as with most negotiations, the employee side usually starts with a proposition they are prepared to negotiate down from, so it can seem to be asking a bit much. And I think it's wrong to describe them as a knee-jerk reaction - I think that is just buying into the promotion of unions as militant. It's a last resort for people as they are losing a lot of money by not going into work.
I know business people do take holidays and will be annoyed by having their holidays disrupted. But I'd imagine that decisions about which airline to use for business trips are made at a corporate rather than individual level so the company may well choose to still use BA for business trips even if individuals have had holidays disrupted.
My point is that they are a last resort that then causes more problems for more people. It isn't that unions are militant, but that strike action comes from the view that the company is evil and clearly trying to get away with treading down on the worker. And you just have to see the reaction of "Unite" when it is announced to see that this is mob mentality at its worst.
You are parly right, a company will have a preferred supplier to fly with. But the individual usual has some choice to exercise - I can decide which flight suits me best because of destination and times - it's just handy if that also turns out to be an airline I prefer flying with!
I think if I was offered a choice of airlines I'd be likely to go with BA, despite the strikes, because they've got a reputation as a good airline to fly with. I have no experience of them as I almost never fly. I'd rather fly with them than with ryanair, for example.
So if you don't think people should strike, what do you suggest they do, if they feel the way they are being treated is completely unacceptable? I haven't really been following the story - my mind is on other things at the moment - so I don't really know what else has happened in the dispute, but as a general principle?
I do also think that it varies from company to company but some companies really do try to get away with a lot with regards to working conditions - others will go the extra mile to keep employees happy.
hot-wallpapers
qxtj h ? qy 47
Post a Comment