[Rossoneri]

Well, it seems like the Eurostar is going on strike as well this weekend (unrelated to this) and baggage handlers in Heathrow and Aberdeen going on strike as well (under the same union as the cabin crew strike.)

So, I am supposed to be psychic and predict 2 months in advance that they were going to serve ballot papers?

In any case, a lot of people affected by the strike have spent quite a bit of time saving up for their holidays. As my own flight is short-haul, it would still be within my means to book another flight, however 100 pounds is not a small sum to a student!

For those who support the union's decision to strike, consider the following 2 points:
1) If the strike goes through, BA will collapse or at the very least, suffer a big hit to its reputation. This can't be of any good to any of the staff in the long run.

2) If you think the union is acting in the best interest of the workers, well, bear in mind that the union behind this strike has lots of internal politics and one of the main "organisers" of this strike is running to be the general-secretary next year. Note that the current secretary-general has called the strike "probably over the top".
BBC article

I am currently too tired/busy with looking up possible alternatives, packing, deciding to buy an alternative ticket first or not but all the above information has been taken from news websites, you can easily read them by googling.

[Winstonm]

Quote

For those who support the union's decision to strike

I never supported the union's decision to strike - I only pointed out that you had decided the union totally to blame and showed examples of how that may not be completely accurate.

Rarely, if ever, is a single side totally blameless or totally at fault.

For a timing standpoint, you would say the union's leveraged their timing to make the most impact by striking around the holidays. They doesn't make the timing right or wrong or the union right or wrong.

[kenberg]

Alert the media, I more or less agree with Winston here. Although he probably will not agree with what I am about to say. With regard to the railroad strike that I referred to, I never even learned the issues. My father was a carpenter, an uncle was a miner, I grew up with the idea that unions were a good thing. Now older, I see unions as the flip side of capitalism. Has every capitalist venture been good for society? No, not really. Is capitalism a good way to run the economy? Yes, I think so. Replace capitalism by organized labor and the answers don't change. On both sides the close-ups are not always pretty.

I know nothing about the specifics of BA or its unions. I get the idea, maybe false, that unions are somewhat more of a drain on the UK economy than they are here.

[Rossoneri]

Winstonm, on Dec 17 2009, 09:39 AM, said:

Quote

For those who support the union's decision to strike

I never supported the union's decision to strike - I only pointed out that you had decided the union totally to blame and showed examples of how that may not be completely accurate.

Rarely, if ever, is a single side totally blameless or totally at fault.

For a timing standpoint, you would say the union's leveraged their timing to make the most impact by striking around the holidays. They doesn't make the timing right or wrong or the union right or wrong.

Not referring to you winston! In any case, I blame the union for most of it for reasons above, and the fact that the none of the people voting for voted for the dates and time period. In any case, I am highly biased against strikes because I have seen labour disputes back home settled between unions and companies without any strikes. Feel free to disagree with me.

The high court's decision will be out this afternoon.

[shyams]

If BBC is considered to be fair and impartial, here is a useful article on the matter. I think you will find the latter part of the article (relating to employee pay, BA losses and pension deficit) interesting

http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/8415370.stm

[Codo]

In Germany (and I guess in many part of the Western world, but what do I know) the gap between rich and poor is getting bigger and the unions getting weaker and we have nearly no strikes any more.

It is possible, that this is just luck, but I can see a correlation between these facts.

I am on the right side of this scissor, but I still hate this development.

So if the formerly too big influence of the unions in GB is getting lower, I do understand a strike at christmas. After all, you want all the publicity that you can get, won't you?

[shyams]

Codo, on Dec 17 2009, 01:16 PM, said:

After all, you want all the publicity that you can get, won't you?

I think the Unions need to ensure they get all the publicity and the sympathy of the general public.

About 2 yrs ago there was a strike by the Fire Brigade staff which generated widespread sympathy from the public at large. In BA's case, I'd guess there is little sympathy...

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on Dec 16 2009, 10:20 PM, said:

Alert the media, I more or less agree with Winston here. Although he probably will not agree with what I am about to say. With regard to the railroad strike that I referred to, I never even learned the issues. My father was a carpenter, an uncle was a miner, I grew up with the idea that unions were a good thing. Now older, I see unions as the flip side of capitalism. Has every capitalist venture been good for society? No, not really. Is capitalism a good way to run the economy? Yes, I think so. Replace capitalism by organized labor and the answers don't change. On both sides the close-ups are not always pretty.

I know nothing about the specifics of BA or its unions. I get the idea, maybe false, that unions are somewhat more of a drain on the UK economy than they are here.

Ken,

I agree with all you say 100%, but I am surprised you think I would not agree. That must mean I have not presented my cases well. I have a tendency to take the opposite side of an issue that is being presented from a single side as my basic world view is one of grays with little or maybe even no black and white issues at all.


I think you say it well. IMO, at its core, unregulated, capitalism is simply law of the jungle, survival of the fittest - that is not a moral judgment of capitalism but a simply expression of its nature, and an argument why it needs to be regulated.

At the same time, untoward influence of pure proletarian interests can threaten the entire work-providing organism with death. Put me in the Karate Kid Kategory: Balance is Key.