BA pilots 30% pay rise??
Guest
Posts: n/a
Sorry guys trying to get some enthusiasum for this thread. As much as I hope you all get what you are looking for, I also know damn well where they will find the exta money from.
Those of us on the ground who don't have a union to represent us will suffer yet another pay freeze/cut to subsidise the increased earnings of you lot.
Not your fault, I know, and if I was you I probably wouldn't care. Still at least I know what were in for!
Those of us on the ground who don't have a union to represent us will suffer yet another pay freeze/cut to subsidise the increased earnings of you lot.
Not your fault, I know, and if I was you I probably wouldn't care. Still at least I know what were in for!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guys, not a BA pilot but as another Uk professional with another airline i really hope you get the 30%. Stunned to hear stories of cc earning more and so much general dissatisfaction in the comnpany. No, i do not think we are "better" than cc, however, the training required alone for flightdeck is much more intense, involved and skillful not to mention stressful and uncertain. Consequently, as the buck stops with us if it goes t*ts up the pay should reflect this. I really do think next winter will make or break "flying" in the uk as a decent career choice, by this i mean our ability to be united and stand our ground and get decent deals in major companies.
Am also stunned ar VS guys accepting their 5%?? Do they know something else is in the pipe line soon?
Ok, enough ranting, good luck with the negotiations and hopefully a good result will be achieved!!!
BB
p.s. are BALPA really gonna try??
Am also stunned ar VS guys accepting their 5%?? Do they know something else is in the pipe line soon?
Ok, enough ranting, good luck with the negotiations and hopefully a good result will be achieved!!!
BB
p.s. are BALPA really gonna try??
Guest
Posts: n/a
Wiley:
>> I'll be very interested to see how attitudes change towards those with "conscientious objections" to maintaining the position the majority voted for. <<
It may have escaped your attention, but companies are not democracies, and what the "majority" may or may not have decided is irrelevant to those outside the union. Union membership is not compulsory here (thank God), and hopefully never will be. People have a right to choose.
I remember, many moons ago when driving a courier van in NZ in the university holiday, I was legally required to join the union... compulsory unionism being the way at that time. When I had cause to enlist the help of said union, I found them totally unhelpful, lethargic and uninterested in their members. Because they did not need to recruit members, and were therefore not accountable, their performance was pathetic. That is the danger of compulsory unionism.
The type of militant unionism on show in Australia (just like the UK of the '50s) is equally inept when it comes to getting results- for the simple reason of supply and demand, as wonderbusdriver has mentioned above.
These days, if you want to get results, you need to be smart as well as strong. Ganging up on non-union members, threatening their families etc., will not endear us to anyone. We have to be smarter than that.
Yes, some non-union members may benefit from industrial action. So what? Some have legitimate objections to being uninvolved in unions.
The sort of thing hinted at by Wiley (and others) is childish, immature and despicable. If you can't win members by reason and argument, you have already lost the moral high ground.
For those who think I'm anti-union, I'm not; I've been in unions all my working life, and have served as a union official. I do, however, believe in a civilised approach to union activities (unlike our Australian brethren during '89).
>> I'll be very interested to see how attitudes change towards those with "conscientious objections" to maintaining the position the majority voted for. <<
It may have escaped your attention, but companies are not democracies, and what the "majority" may or may not have decided is irrelevant to those outside the union. Union membership is not compulsory here (thank God), and hopefully never will be. People have a right to choose.
I remember, many moons ago when driving a courier van in NZ in the university holiday, I was legally required to join the union... compulsory unionism being the way at that time. When I had cause to enlist the help of said union, I found them totally unhelpful, lethargic and uninterested in their members. Because they did not need to recruit members, and were therefore not accountable, their performance was pathetic. That is the danger of compulsory unionism.
The type of militant unionism on show in Australia (just like the UK of the '50s) is equally inept when it comes to getting results- for the simple reason of supply and demand, as wonderbusdriver has mentioned above.
These days, if you want to get results, you need to be smart as well as strong. Ganging up on non-union members, threatening their families etc., will not endear us to anyone. We have to be smarter than that.
Yes, some non-union members may benefit from industrial action. So what? Some have legitimate objections to being uninvolved in unions.
The sort of thing hinted at by Wiley (and others) is childish, immature and despicable. If you can't win members by reason and argument, you have already lost the moral high ground.
For those who think I'm anti-union, I'm not; I've been in unions all my working life, and have served as a union official. I do, however, believe in a civilised approach to union activities (unlike our Australian brethren during '89).
