NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4142408.stm

Some 70,000 passengers, many of them stranded, will be prevented from travelling until 1800 BST.

BA grounded all flights after hundreds of baggage handlers, ground staff and loaders took unofficial action in support of 600 sacked catering staff.

A further five airlines have been affected by the disruption.


That's what I call solidarity.

and i thought sympathy strikes were illegal and all...

They won't get any popular support doing that.

and i thought sympathy strikes were illegal and all...

This one is. ;)

Oh, ppppt. I clicked this thread hoping to hear about a wildcat that got on some British Airways flight and started attacking people or something.

What a let down. :/

I thought the Wildcat had gone extinct in the UK.

heh. sorry, just felt I had to.

http://www.varsity.com/images/upload/varsity_newsletters/mascotcostumes/507%20Tan%20Wildcat-Bobcat_2.jpg
"exits are located towards the rear of the aircraft..."

:P

Hell Is For Heroes, or so they say.

Oh, ppppt. I clicked this thread hoping to hear about a wildcat that got on some British Airways flight and started attacking people or something.

What a let down. :/

*puts down rifle* damn it!

I guess this is what happens when you take your workers for granted.

Wow, congrats to them. <applauds>

The strikers were totally justified in what they did...

BA's idea of a solution to the catering worker strike was to fire the lot. Obviously when you're talking about minimum-wage nightshift staff without much in the way of contracts, most of whom have English as a second language, it really is difficult to see how you could stamp on them more thoroughly.

And they shot themselves in both feet, because who is going to do the catering if you just told the entire workforce to go home and not come back? Like, duh! :rolleyes:

For all the other employees, going on strike then became a matter of self-preservation - if your employers fire one department in response to unrest, yours could be next. What happens to your freedoms under a multitude of labour relations regulations, if the last group to exercise them was fired?

So it's definitely BA managment that screwed up, and hopefully the financial losses they will incur, and yet another blow to their tarnished reputation, will force them to reconsider whether the company has a future in their hands.

From http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4144712.stm

The current walkout is an unofficial action in sympathy with workers who were dismissed at another company, BA's food supplier Gate Gourmet.

So who owns Gate Gourmet, where the sacked workers were employed?

If BA doesn't have control of that company, then this is purely a sympathy strike that has no connection to BA (except that they are the primary customer). Should airline workers strike in support of a seperate company they feel solidarity with?

Should airline workers strike in support of a seperate company they feel solidarity with?
Depends how close the relationship. These days, pretty much anything can be owned by any entity. The name doesn't really tell you anything...as anyone who has ever seen a responsibility flowchart for a commercial shipping company will tell you. There you often need the services of an expensive lawyer to get beyond a Swiss postcode. :rolleyes:

I think it's fine to do if the people involved are all the same lot of bastards. :)

Should airline workers strike in support of a seperate company they feel solidarity with?

yes

Should airline workers strike in support of a seperate company they feel solidarity with?

Yes.

Should airline workers strike in support of a seperate company they feel solidarity with?
No. That kind of idiocy just screws things up. Strikes are a way of sticking it to your employer (a punishment, as it were). So, why would you punish someone who has no power over the situation?
That's like me bitchslapping the owner of the local Burger King over the fact that England still has a monarchy; its stupid, its pointless, and in a sane world, it won't make a damn bit of difference.

edited for punctuation and format

No. That kind of idiocy just screws things up. Strikes are a way of sticking it to your employer (a punishment, as it were). So, why would you punish someone who has no power over the situation?
That's like me bitchslapping the owner of the local Burger King over the fact that England still has a monarchy; its stupid, its pointless, and in a sane world, it won't make a damn bit of difference.

so you oppose the tactics of, for example, the 'orange revolution' in ukraine, where the guy who wound up winning called for a general strike?

secondary strikes and general strikes are incredibly powerful tools - probably some of the best ones the people in general have available to them when dealing with the forces of the elite that owns everything and runs the state. one of the few things the elites truly fear is thousands of people on the streets, stopping business as usual, and not going back to work.

According to the BBC, the fired workers were ex-BA who got outsourced, so everyone still knew each other.

Owned.

According to the BBC, the fired workers were ex-BA who got outsourced, so everyone still knew each other.

Owned.

:D

They should have seen it coming!

secondary strikes and general strikes are incredibly powerful tools - probably some of the best ones the people in general have available to them when dealing with the forces of the elite that owns everything and runs the state. one of the few things the elites truly fear is thousands of people on the streets, stopping business as usual, and not going back to work.
Ah, so this has more to do with opposing the Big Three that rule the world then? Look, I was referring to an incidence in which two companies that aren't run by the same people (I am refering here to actually being run, if you want to insist that all the corporate world is being run by some "elite" group, I'm just going to sigh and shake my head a bit before I leave you to your tin foil hats) are being punished for what one company did.
Strikes are a method of punishment, sticking it to the man as it were. However, sympathy strikes that cross company lines are sticking to a different man, and so are merely a selfish annoyance.
If Company A starts stepping on its workers toes, causing their workforce to walk out, then Company A's workers are in the right and are fighting Company A. However, if Company B then loses its workers to a sympathy strike, Company B's workers aren't in the right because they aren't hurting Company A.

If Company A starts stepping on its workers toes, causing their workforce to walk out, then Company A's workers are in the right and are fighting Company A. However, if Company B then loses its workers to a sympathy strike, Company B's workers aren't in the right because they aren't hurting Company A.

but company B does business with company A, and therefore monetarily supports company A - and the labor practices it uses. if the workers at company B continue working while the workers of company A are striking, then they are scabbing on the A workers. and by walking off the job too, they greatly increase the pressure on company A. by refusing to work they hurt company A by further reducing their ability to do any business at all during the strike, and are attempting to get company B to feel some economic pain for doing business with those creeps at company A.

Like almost all strikes, this one is a monumental act of selfishness. Do these people not consider the fact that there are thousands of people waiting to go on holiday or business trips? No, all they can think about is sticking a finger up at the Establishment just to prove they can.

Well, the damage they have done to BA is going to be difficult to repair. So if BA goes bankrupt because of the long term consequences of this illegal action, these idiot strikers will be out of a job along with the colleagues they supposedly are standing up for.

No. That kind of idiocy just screws things up. Strikes are a way of sticking it to your employer (a punishment, as it were). So, why would you punish someone who has no power over the situation?
That's like me bitchslapping the owner of the local Burger King over the fact that England still has a monarchy; its stupid, its pointless, and in a sane world, it won't make a damn bit of difference.

edited for punctuation and format
The BA workers are striking to force BA to either dump GG or suffer losses.

but company B does business with company A, and therefore monetarily supports company A
Companies support no one, they provide services/funds/products in exchange for toher services/funds/products. Demanding that your boss only ever do business with people you like is just assinine. (Unless of course, you want to forgo a slice of your paycheck, so that Company B can pay slightly higher rates for Company C's services).

if the workers at company B continue working while the workers of company A are striking, then they are scabbing on the A workers.
Only if Company A is directly supporting Company B with free cash, or if Company B is a temp agency. Otherwise, Company A isn't receiving free support.

and by walking off the job too, they greatly increase the pressure on company A. by refusing to work they hurt company A by further reducing their ability to do any business at all during the strike, and are attempting to get company B to feel some economic pain for doing business with those creeps at company A.
No, they're trying to screw everyone else. The purpose of these actions is to outrage consumers, and act in a childish and selfish manner. The workers don't decide who the company does business with, that is what management is for.

Companies support no one, they provide services/funds/products in exchange for toher services/funds/products. Demanding that your boss only ever do business with people you like is just assinine. (Unless of course, you want to forgo a slice of your paycheck, so that Company B can pay slightly higher rates for Company C's services).


Only if Company A is directly supporting Company B with free cash, or if Company B is a temp agency. Otherwise, Company A isn't receiving free support.


No, they're trying to screw everyone else. The purpose of these actions is to outrage consumers, and act in a childish and selfish manner. The workers don't decide who the company does business with, that is what management is for.
And striking sure get's the management's attention, doesn't it? The workers are forcing BA's management to possibly accept a higher cost of catering service to teach GG a lesson. GG will learn, quite quickly, that playing games with strikers and firing people wontonly does not make for an effective corperation.

Like almost all strikes, this one is a monumental act of selfishness.

Looking out for collegues is selfish?

Of course it might also benefit them. But they are standing together since they make more of an impact that way (do you think many people would pay attention to one lonely picketer?). To decry strikes as selfish is ridiculous. Especially since it is being done in solidarity for other workers

Do these people not consider the fact that there are thousands of people waiting to go on holiday or business trips?

They probably have and probably (a) don't care if people cannot sun themselves (b) think the livelyhoods of people they know are more important than people getting a tan on the Costa del Sol (c) don't care of others go abroad for work purposes when people they know don't have work.


Well, the damage they have done to BA is going to be difficult to repair. So if BA goes bankrupt because of the long term consequences of this illegal action, these idiot strikers will be out of a job along with the colleagues they supposedly are standing up for.

Highly unlikely that. Otherwise France wouldn't have any airline companies.

Companies support no one, they provide services/funds/products in exchange for toher services/funds/products.

By giving money to another (even in exchange for goods and services) is
supporting another.

Demanding that your boss only ever do business with people you like is just assinine. (Unless of course, you want to forgo a slice of your paycheck, so that Company B can pay slightly higher rates for Company C's services).

This arguement might wash with Free Soviets if he accepted the current capitalist system.

Only if Company A is directly supporting Company B with free cash, or if Company B is a temp agency. Otherwise, Company A isn't receiving free support.

Is monetary now a synonym for free? No?

Then FS never said anything of the sort.

No, they're trying to screw everyone else. The purpose of these actions is to outrage consumers, and act in a childish and selfish manner. The workers don't decide who the company does business with, that is what management is for.

Yes, workers should just be sheep, doing whatever ever the management tells them. Would you like them to bow and touch their forelocks too?

How dare those pesky workers concern themselves with the lively hoods of fellow workers. That's not what they are paid for. :rolleyes:

BA Workers have returned to work while talks are underway.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4147252.stm

BA are blaming GG and vice-versa. :D

This arguement might wash with Free Soviets if he accepted the current capitalist system.
No, this argument works because people working receive a portion of the company's profit. If the company's profit should decline, so should the amount that the worker's receive. A failure to recognize this basic fact of life is what is now driving American based Airlines into the ground.
Is monetary now a synonym for free? No?

Then FS never said anything of the sort.
No, the implication is that Company B is somehow directly holding A's head above the water. B isn't, so B's workers have no reason to strike.
Yes, workers should just be sheep, doing whatever ever the management tells them. Would you like them to bow and touch their forelocks too?
Yes, quite, old chap. And if they would avert their eyes from mine, and call me "sirrah" I would be immensely obliged.
Seriously though, if the managment aren't giving them orders that are damaging to themselves or their interests, then the workers should go on with it. The purpose of the management is to keep the company going and find clients/suppliers and if the workers don't let them do that, its like hiring someone to sit in a closet.
How dare those pesky workers concern themselves with the lively hoods of fellow workers. That's not what they are paid for. :rolleyes:
No, it isn't. They can show all the solidarity they want on their own time, but wasting company time on projects for the "boys" is an offense that should be the basis for a swift firing.

I say to the owners of British Airways, sack 'em all and get new workers. these people could be thrown in jail, or fined a hell of a lot of money for what they did, and i think they should be. bunch of idiots. don't they realise that bringing heathrow to a standstill will get them no supporters. you know what this country needs, the death penalty!

I say to the owners of British Airways, sack 'em all and get new workers. these people could be thrown in jail, or fined a hell of a lot of money for what they did, and i think they should be. bunch of idiots. don't they realise that bringing heathrow to a standstill will get them no supporters. you know what this country needs, the death penalty!

Blu tac - you say you want to move to the US - please piss off there soon where you can rant about how people born into poor families are not really people and how screwing over your fellow man is the greatest thing you can ever do. We won't miss you.

I really don't understand people who say "All strikes, bar none, are selfish". I wonder, if the people were being paid £1 an hour, were forced to work 14 hour days 7 days a week whilst the company was making literally billions of profit every year, 99% of which went into the managments pocket - if they striked, would some people say "Pah! How selfish of them! Wanting to earn enough to feed their families...the poor poor employers!"

SOME strikes are selfish - you need to look at each case individually. Attacking every strike out of a right wing duty to support the employer, however badly they treat the employee, is just pathetic.

Blu tac - you say you want to move to the US - please piss off there soon where you can rant about how people born into poor families are not really people and how screwing over your fellow man is the greatest thing you can ever do. We won't miss you.

I really don't understand people who say "All strikes, bar none, are selfish". I wonder, if the people were being paid £1 an hour, were forced to work 14 hour days 7 days a week whilst the company was making literally billions of profit every year, 99% of which went into the managments pocket - if they striked, would some people say "Pah! How selfish of them! Wanting to earn enough to feed their families...the poor poor employers!"

SOME strikes are selfish - you need to look at each case individually. Attacking every strike out of a right wing duty to support the employer, however badly they treat the employee, is just pathetic.

My grandfather is an employer and I'll take over his job in a few years. So it is my duty as an employer to stand up for other employers over employee's. And if the people who earn £1 an hour were smart enough they'd get another job. They're the only ones to blame.

So in other words you are going to get a good job without doing a single stroke of work in your life to earn it?

Or does God love you more than everyone else, and he hates poor people, so you actually do deserve it more than all those sub humans?

I wonder, if you had being born without a cushy job guarenteed simply because someone worked hard before you were even born, and were instead born with few chances in life, would you look down on people who have it hard so much?

So in other words you are going to get a good job without doing a single stroke of work in your life to earn it?

Or does God love you more than everyone else, and he hates poor people, so you actually do deserve it more than all those sub humans?

I wonder, if you had being born without a cushy job guarenteed simply because someone worked hard before you were even born, and were instead born with few chances in life, would you look down on people who have it hard so much?

Umm excuse me, don't think that the company is a good one, in fact it is a very small company with only 4 staff, now, if anythings ever going to happpen to it, I'm going to have to work pretty damn hard for it. I already do work pretty damn hard for it. I type all the bills, I do all the accounts, I do all the filing. I do just as much as my grandfather. I go in there every day from 9 till 6 and work my socks off. But because I'm still a minor I cannot be put on the payroll. I get £10 a week for doing all of that, but do I strike, no! Because I'm not selfish. I could stay at home and go on the computer and watch TV all day, but I go in, it gives me something to do, and I get money for it, and I save my money, I don't spend it on crap. My annual expense is something like £100, and my annual income is nearer £300, so I've worked very hard, and you don't realise that. You think that managers sit on their ass all day, well they don't, I've seen a working environment from the views of worker and manager, and manager works twice as hard as employee. the employees work 10 till 4, and they make £350 a week, my granfather works much more than that and gets £130 per week.

So basically, don't go presuming things you don't know about. They don't happen like that.

EDIT: And by the way, I don't believe in God, so he can't love me more than everyone else.

Your grandfather owns a buisness and pays his employees £350 a week but himself £130, despite the fact he works harder? I call BS - unless the buisness is struggling and he is forced to do this to keep it running, in which case you would say he deserves no more anyway.

Besides, do you think this applies to BA? Do you think the CEOs of BA earn a third as much as the catering staff and work twice as hard? Unlikely.

Your grandfather owns a buisness and pays his employees £350 a week but himself £130, despite the fact he works harder? I call BS - unless the buisness is struggling and he is forced to do this to keep it running, in which case you would say he deserves no more anyway.

Besides, do you think this applies to BA? Do you think the CEOs of BA earn a third as much as the catering staff and work twice as hard? Unlikely.


Well the fact he earns this much is because of his brother, he keeps screwing the business up, (its a ltd company so it needs at least 2 shareholders, and his brothers the other one) so yes it is failing, but it is turning around and becoming more succesful.