If Unions in general are so great then please explain why UK unions oppose the mandatory implementation of the European Working Time Directive and thus force people into having to work long hours just to earn a subsistance income?
Why don't unions persue the objective of all people being paid at a rate that 40 hours per week would provide a living wage and anything more than that would be a bonus rather than the current UK situation where many workers have to work 50+ hours per week just to survive?
Or would that be in the category of - we will not press that issue because it could adversely affect a more important issue.
Unions have an agenda. Your will only get assistance with your situation for as long as it is in accordance with the overall agenda and the union will not have to give ground elsewhere on what they term more important topics.
For example, union assistance to this pilot would be heavily affected by future salary and condition negotiations with the company.
Does anyone not believe that when MOL meets the union he would not say the following;
"Ok we'll give this guy 50 grand and he will have to agree not to make any statements regarding any issue. If you press for more then we will have to look at the staffing of Bournemouth because we might be removing the BASE status."
Result = Union tell the pilot to take the 50 grand and in a later press release tell the Bournemouth pilots how through their negotiations they have received an assurance from management that ther base will not be closed.
Am I anti-union : No.
Do I have a realistic view of the various limits that unions operate under - Yes.
This link might be of interest to everyone;
crapunion.co.uk
Have a look at how the various unions in NATS have operated and changed the worker's pay and conditions over the past 10 years.
I believe that new hires at NATS are paid only a fraction of what they were paid in the 1990's.
Regards,
DFC