BAA Strike call over pensions

[BAND4ALL]

Well Mr Barron I hope you are watching this very closely matey!!!!

FFS a NATS flag will be the last of your problems :E

[Helen49]

Time the BAA staff joined the real world!

Final Salary Pensions schemes long gone for most people.

If staff with such an agreement were to be losing the benefit then there might be some sympathy....but new comers who new the T&C when they accepted the job......sorry no sympathy at all.

Just another opportunity for a highly paid union official to have his moment of glory in the public eye.....sod everybody else!!

Helen49

[Point Seven]

Sorry Helen49, but I have to disagree here. You are quite right that the staff should engage BAA management about how to best sort out the pension problems that the BAA is facing. You are also quite right that Final Pension schemes are becoming rarer and rarer.

However, there has been no negotiation, the BAA have simpy told staff that the scheme is closing and that is that. There are other measures that could have been taken to help the situation but Ferrovial are not budging.

The striking staff are making this action not for the limelight, but to protect their future livelihood - and as such, we should support them.

P7

[niknak]

With due respect to all BAA employees, there are very few jobs within the organisation that are so specialised that, to get the qualified people, the company have to offer a final salary scheme.

All they have to offer is a competetive salary and further training where and when appropriate - the BAA know that, so do the Pension Trustees.

Outside NATS, there aren't many ATCO employers offering final salary schemes, yet they still eventually get the staff.

I can't see what strike action will achieve other than to piss off the customers.

[MrJones]

A closed scheme is not a healthy scheme.

[foghorn]

As long as it is properly funded, why?

[Nimmer]

Agree totally with the last post. I hope prospect send a message of support to the BAA employees.
Mr. Barron watch this action very carefully.
As for staff not caring about new employees and their pension, that is so so wrong. How long before new staff out number old staff, how long before we have a pay rise for those on a new pension, and a rise for those on the old scheme.
A fragmented work force is not the way forward.

[Amenhotep]

I'm relatively new to BAA and joined the pension scheme just in time. I'm not part of the union so will have to work on strike day, if it does occur. To be honest, I've no idea what to make of this.

From what I hear at work, most people aren't concerned with new starter pension schemes and are only trying to protect their own. What's more, how is a lowly security officer supposed to know whether Ferrovial can afford to keep the current scheme going. Do I look like a fiancial market analyst? Am I supposed to trust the union to make my decisions for me? The "propaganda" makes it quite clear that union officials are biased towards a strike before even having asked us our own views. If other companies have hit problems financing their pension schemes, is BAA supposed to be immune to this? If BAA keeps the scheme going and later struggles to make ends meet, will my own pension suffer because of it?

I'm a university graduate and see myself as being quite smart :cool: . Even I fail to see how anyone can be informed enough to make an intelligent choice, especially in a company where communication seems to be more by chinese whispers than any other method. I'm quite grateful I'm not part of the union, one less thing to worry about. :confused:

[mhk77]

How likely are these proposed strikes likely to happen? I can't remember if it's this thread (and excess Xmas eating and drinking has given me the energy and motivation of a new born baby so I can't be bothered looking! :}) or another one, but there was mention that because Heathrow and Gatwick are threatened (as well as all the main Scottish airports)with closures on those days, then the government might intervene to sort something out. Or was that rubbish? I'm due to catch a flight home on the 7th and am flying again on the 9th. Am I likely to be caught up in all this? Or will there be some form of intervention or last minute negotiations to curtail the proposed strikes? :ok:

[TheOddOne]

there was mention that because Heathrow and Gatwick are threatened (as well as all the main Scottish airports)with closures on those days, then the government might intervene to sort something out. Or was that rubbish?

No, I can't see a reason why the Gov't should intervene. They don't when there's a national rail strike, so why should they when airports are affected? Anyway, it won't be Security that causes complete stoppage of passenger flights, but the Fire Service. There will be sufficient non-union Security staff backed up by fully-trained office workers to just about keep the queues moving.

The Gov't took one step back when the BAA were bought by the Spanish. You should take that as an indicator of their concern should the service be disrupted for a few days.

Really, the only time the Gov't are likely to intervene in ANY dispute is when it directly affects the lives and safety of the general public; the Local Authority Fire Service strike of a few years ago is the only example I can think of. As another example, I suppose if nurses were to go on strike, then they might intervene; otherwise, they will just let the market forces sort it out.

BTW, don't even think that the RAF or Local Authority Firefighters could take over the role at Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted, there's no way they could become sufficiently proficient at local procedures in the timescales required to satisfy the CAA's SRG Aeroromes Inspectorate. It'd take weeks even to just get enough people with airside IDs!!!

Cheers,
TheOddOne

[mhk77]

Ok. And in answer to the other questions:

1. How likely are these strikes to happen?
2. Assuming the strikes go ahead on the 7th, am I likely to be caught up in a backlog for my flight on the 9th?

:ok:

[320 or greater]

Ref: The odd one
It was my understanding that the fire crews contracts stipulated that they couldn't go on strike (thats not ruling out wildcat of course), so baa may not be as hard hit as feared/hoped.

[ShyTorque]

I can't follow this; the logic of the employees threatening the strike doesn't make sense to me.

BAA are presumably suffering from a big downturn in the pension investment market, exactly like all the rest in the western world. If they don't do something about what is possibly a big deficit in the fund, the whole thing could collapse, affecting every member already involved.

By reducing the company's contribution to new employees (not yet employed or under contract), surely they are protecting the well-being of the existing fund?

Yet the fund members want to strike; apparently as a protest - to put their own pension fund in jeopardy!

I was in a scheme just like this (now sadly not, due to a change of employer). The fund went into huge deficit. The same thing happened; the employer closed the salary related pension to future employees. As it affected only future members of the scheme (who could make a choice about accepting a contract or not), in order to safeguard future interests of the exisiting paid-up members, we all breathed a sigh of relief and carried on.

Am I missing the point or are these BAA employees likely to martyr their own pension fund by ignorance, stupidity, or a combination of both? :confused:

[slip and turn]

Yep, you're missing the point .... completely :suspect:

[Roffa]

ShyTorque wrote:

BAA are presumably suffering from a big downturn in the pension investment market, exactly like all the rest in the western world. If they don't do something about what is possibly a big deficit in the fund, the whole thing could collapse, affecting every member already involved.

What deficits? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7160197.stm)

Whilst, as the article suggests, caution is advisable it seems things aren't as bleak as the picture some would like to paint.

[ShyTorque]

Yep, you're missing the point .... completely

So, please explain.

[TheOddOne]

So, please explain.

Well, perhaps I'll try...

I'm now a pensioner (before my time and not of my choosing) so I have a vested interest.

We've seen pensioners marching in the streets recently on the news, protesting about losing their company pensions when their employer allowed the scheme to fall into disrepair; maybe because the company went bust or because the fund was raided by unscrulpulous people at the top who took the money away; a certain newspaper proprieter comes to mind.

Whilst the BAA can still make money (though you'll have seen plenty on these threads to indicate how the Competition Commission and the CAA put a cap on that) then the employees in the scheme want to see the BAA keep it in good condition against future down-turns. The current employees don't trust the new management to honour any pledges made as they've seen what these new top managers can do.

I possibly think there are also further complications; the staff are generally fed up with the unpleasant way in which the change programme has been organised and I also personally think that there is also an agenda for a certain Union official to demonstrate his ability to finally force the suspension of paying flights.

I hope that sanity reigns and the members have sufficient reason to call off the action, but my understanding is that the two sides have a long way to go. My personal view of strikes is that the outcome is usually a loss for those on strike. I don't think the SVR strike at LGW a couple of years ago did the members any good. Who was the Union leader involved there???

I've NO indication whatsoever that there is a 'no strike' clause in the AFS terms & conditions, but I'd be interested to see any evidence to the contrary. Quite frankly, without the AFS coming out, any other action will merely cause delays and misery for the travelling public, not a wholesale closedown...

TheOddOne