Thursday, May 20, 2010

Time to restore an employers right to sack workers who strike

Labour paid back the Union paymasters with a provision in the law that makes in illegal for an employer to sack workers during the first 12 weeks of a strike.

So we have the absurd case of BA who could replace the staff on strike in the bat of an eyelid unable to do so because Labour got bribed by money from the Unions ( which Labour bunged them anyway from the Tax payer via the Union modernisation fund ).

Lets have a level playing field.

Remeber Ronald Reagan sacking the airtraffic controllers ? That's what's needed here. It impossible to have sympathy with the self destructive behaviour of the striking BA staff - and the law should not allow them to black mail their employer.

Odd the BBC never brings this issue up ....


Anonymous said...

And return to slavery - people have short, short memories.
Tied accomodation.
Sweat shops.
Scab labour.
Employer gangs beating th shit out of the workers who had the fcuking temerity to ask for a living wage.
Go fcuk yourself.

JohnRS said...

I assume its 12 consecutive weeks and not a cumulative total?

Man in a Shed said...

@Anon - what these regulations do is protect those in work against those who are out of it.

None of the list you have applies to BA cabin crew.

There might be a case for the lowest paid - but then the minimum wage covers that.

What experience shows is that these sort of regulations are a conspiracy of those in work against those looking for it. Employing people becomes excessively expensive - but those in work don't care they are pricing new jobs out of the market and exporting them abroad.

Man in a Shed said...

@John - its a good question. I don't know the answer. But I imagine Unite will calibrate its response to avoid reaching the point where BA can legally make strikers redundant.

Anonymous said...

Oh! I get it, Only Willie Walsh should have the right to fire those that have the balls to go on strike.
All other bosses must comply with the current labour legislation.
Are you advocating different legislation for different professions and jobs.

Man in a Shed said...

@Anon - I'm advocating returning to the legislation that was on the books in 1997.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of the debate on this, I do think BA has not exactly prospered under Mr Walsh and poor industrial relations at a company is usually a sign of bad management.

James Higham said...

Time to do a lot of things, MiaS.

Anonymous said...

When there are so many people desperate to work, but unable to find any, it's bonkers to think a union is willing to bring an industry to a standstill.

At the same time there are many other carriers readying their cabins in anticipation of a further influx of disillusioned travellers.

Hire willing workers, there are lots out there BA!

none said...

I wonder how much BA is actually worth now?

People have short memories... this country lost a number of industries to countries that managed industrial relations far more effectively particularly Japan.

The issue here seems to be a union that can't control its own members in conflict with a ruthless and aggressive boss.
It can't end prettily for anyone.

An appealing solution would involve losing both sets of belligerent staff: both in management & crew, because clearly, they are not going to be able to have a stable working relationship; and the company's reputation will be at stake if either the management or the militant cabin crew remain.

Walsh started well enough, but now I think his position is on the line.

Similarly, I think the economic conditions are likely to lead to redundancies, and strikers are not likely to prosper.

This strike isn't about fixing odious pay and conditions; it's about foolish people escalating a minor dispute and looking to save face - on both sides. with Fergie... "bad timing"...

Moonraker said...

Don't understand why you have to keep bringing the BBC into this. If it has a slightly left wing bias it only helps to balance the overwhelmingly right wing commercial press and media. Extremism in either direction has consequences neither of us should want to contemplate.

Man in a Shed said...

@Moonraker - The BBC set the political weather. Their relentless questions on the Today programme or Newsnight determine how the public see issues.

With newspapers everyone used to know what world view they are buying ( usually one that reinforces their own - though my old Professor at Uni used to read the Telegraph to challenge his left wing viewpoint. )

The BBC destroyed Conservative chances in the 2005 general election by repeating Labour its racist to talk about immigration slur in almost every interview which stopped any political debate being possible.

In short the BBC is a direct threat to our democracy.

Moonraker said...

Yet the Conservatives, when in government, have not sought to change the BBC's political coverage. I would have thought that the party hierarchy would have included BBC reform in their recent manifesto if they shared your opinion.

Man in a Shed said...

I suspect the BBC is safe with the Lib Dems in a veto position over changes. Its one of the greatest disappointments of the result.

However I suspect team Cameron thinks it can deal with the BBC devil, which is a bad mistake in my view.

Anonymous said...

BA can't even make a profit while price fixing. They've positioned themselves, like so many other companies to run at a debt. Staff salaries are really a distraction, their problems are one of institutionalised management, i.e. too many, paid too well, doing too little. If BA goes the way of Woolworths, then it's their own fault, not the staff.

Crumpled Fiveskin said...

imagine the shitstorm that would kick off if BA had been able to sack them and done it?!

we could have been gazing down the barrel of a general strike.

Sure Walsh has got to run a business; but he doesn't look like he's much good at it... he seems utterly incapable of leading staff as a team, and seems to totally alienate them and wind them up.

He can't even manage to divide and conquer the militant faction inside the union from the more reasonable workers.

Both Walsh and the militants have to go... how can they carry on if either of them wins?!