Friday, 26 March 2010
I appreciate that worker's rights are important, but when a company is fighting to survive in a very challenging and tough industry and environment, which is getting worse not better, why are the worker's thinking that the company owe them more? Other companies have made significant and fight-for-survival decisions over the past couple of years, some have been questionnable but the company survival in my opinion is more important - i.e. reducing redundancies.
You know what I am talking about British Airways Cabin crew. Although I respect the workers and company, the workers are appearing to imply that they are bigger than the company...no one is bigger than a company that they work for. At the end of the day, if they don't like the pay of conditions, then bugger off and for another company. Of course, this automatically means you have to resign, you lose your perks and your stature. Instead you all stay and just complain - via the Unions. This is not the right way to resolve an employee issue, you must accept that significant changes are required for all paties, else there would actually be more job loses and the company might down-size (ergh, Air Lingus an easy example?).
No one respects the Cabin Crew strikes, no one accepts any comments coming from the Unite Trade Union (who are seen and renowned to be very militant) and the staff in question are not getting any respect - which detrimentally impacts their cause. No one is starting to care about what you are complaining about any longer!
Here's an example for those who aren't close to it (including me too, I guess)...if you are warned that if you issue strike dates then a particular offer is retracted, and then your issue strike dates, then ... guess what...the offer is retracted. It's that easy. The union can't then complain that BA retracted an offer, 'cos BA could and should do so in this particular case. It's the Unions fault the offer was retracted. The irony is that the Union (Unite) wanted to put that "retracted" offer to its members for a vote, commenting that they are recommending a "no vote". So what exactly is the point to put the offer back on the table, if we are expecting a general "no vote". It makes no sense to me! Can someone explain this?
Here's another example, staff perks. If BA indicated (with lots of notice) that anyone who strikes will lose their staff perks, and those particular Cabin Crew strike, then they simply lose their perks. They can't grumble, what has happened today is unbelievable. The Cabin Crew and Unite are stating that BA should put the perks back on the negotiation table - ergh, why? You lost the right for the perks as soon as your went out on strike. You knew the risk, you accepted the risk, please deal honourably with the consequences.
In my mind, get new staff who want to work for BA in, and reduce the overhead costs. This is the only way to get this problem resolved. Those Cabin Crew who want to strike, go away, you are ruining a great name, a great company, and your own jobs! You really need to wake up, smell the bacon and sense that you are in the wrong, this is not a year for strikes, it is a year of compromise and unfortunate, a fight for survival, we have ALL made sacrifices so why can't you accept that drastic changes maybe correct. Only registered users can write comments. Please login or register. Powered by AkoComment 1.0! |