Originally Posted by
wiggy
I’ll be honest and say I’m struggling with that perception, I think however it has been custom and practise from the company POV for a while to suggest that improvements in one area of T&Cs should be self funded, and as a community we are stuffed if we think that is the way we should proceed.....or do you seriously think the senior should forgo any improvement in T&Cs in order to fund improvements in T&Cs for the junior at a time when the company is making record profits?
As for “robbing Peter to pay Paul, Last time I literally saw that expression used was in a forum debate about the (dire) Maternity provision for female pilots, where one or two of our well meaning but IMHO naive colleagues suggested the community should forgo an element of next years pay rise in order to improve maternity benefits...again this was seriously being suggested at a time when the company is making over a billion in profits......
We need to be pressurising the company into divvying up some reward across the board for everbodies hard work, not arguing that those on Fleet XXX should be subsiding those on Fleet YYY, or those with a seniority number of less than 2000 should be taking a smaller pay increase to top up the payrise of those with a bigger senority number...
and yes...I do agree with what was mentioned earlier, we at BA can be our own worse enemy...and the management know it.
That expression seems to get used regularly. The idea of scrapping PP34 has been floated several times and each time gets met with outrage mostly because people on PP24 believe that the money for that would result in a lower pay increase for them. I even remember reading a tread entitled something along the lines of “PP34 reps are coming for your money” and it attracted a lot of comments.
Imagine if BALPA came back from the pay negotiations and gave the following choices, 1) A global 5% increase for 3 years, or 2) Scrap PP34 and everyone gets 2.5% for 3 years how do you recon that vote would go? Think I can guess.