B.A dispute

[druiaghtagh]

Althugh it is awful for all the stranded passengers, the dispute centeres on the catering company provoking it by trying to cut already low wages and poor conditions, the media particularly tabloids are saying 'sack them all, ' this is a genuine idpute and as a lifelong trade unionist myself i have sympathy for their cause and although secondary picketing took place by the baggage handlers, this is actulally illegal under draconian laws introduced by the witch Thatcher. I have never believed those laws to be just and fair, what do other AB ers think please. a reasoned argument. would be great, i think that is a reasonable dipute caused by a company losing money and clutching at straws to make ends meet by tampering with the livelihood of fellow trade unionists and as such have to support them in this

[mfewell]

Here is a non-political view. BA will be ok, but if a situation like this arises in a smaller company and as a result that company goes out of business, then who has gained what ?

[ianess]

Unless I've got the wrong end of the stick, was Gate Catering not at one time owned by BA?    In the good old Capitalist way of things the small company then got screwed by the big company by paying minimum prices for maximum quality.  In this instance there was/is a highly organised union, plus a great deal of sympathy from their former workmates, to whom many had family connections.
I sympathise entirely with the workforce trying to maintain whatever working conditions they have in the face of Victorian management, but at the same time wonder if perhaps they may have shot themselves in the foot by alienating a major customer.  The whole sad situation needs sorting urgently, probably with BA's help.   Sub-contractors must be held responsible to the main contractor for any damages, in particular when that damage was instigated by their own poor standard of management.
My sympathies obviously are with the strikers and those who understandably took part in secondary action, but the entire situation should have been avoided at all costs.

[Loosehead]

Well to answer your political point, the unions became increasingly powerful until they got to the stage of making us the sik man of Europe. Successive governments of Tory and Labour failed to stand up to the all powerful unions. The laws of the time where such that it was almost impossible to for business to be efficient. Strikes for stupid reasons where very common. Hard left loonies had disproportionate power to bring out people on strike and make them suffer for the flimsiest of reasons.Remeber "Red Robbo" how many hard working lost wages for that nutter? Along came Thatcher, and I sense you didn't have to survive in those days as you term her a "witch" anyway I digress. She had the bottle to stand up and legislate, the unions sowed the wind now they are reaping the whirlwind, note Blair isn't too keen to repeal the Thatcherite union law, he's not stupid.

The trouble is the Unions, lefty's and socialists et al all think the world owes them a living, it doesn't! Someone in society needs to create wealth thats why socialism is fundementally floored. If the staff you refer to are so hard done by why don't they move, improve their lives instead of ruining the hard won holiday's of others.

[SteveD]

Have I missed something here?  As I understand it, the original dispute was between the employees and the management of Gate Gourmet.  This dispute did not prevent BA's aircraft from flying and, although the passengers would have been inconvenienced, they could have travelled.

The involvement of the baggage handlers grounded all BA's flights to and from Heathrow causing enormous distress and inconvenience to the travelling public. What justification was there for that?

[bernardo]

I support the laws which ban secondary or sympathy strikes.  But the way BA and GG have behaved towards the 800 sacked caterers is appalling.  They should all be reinstated and I have fraternal solidarity with their struggle against the renegade feudalistic oligarchy of BA.

[SteveD]

I must have missed something then.  How did BA behave towards the sacked Gate Gourmet employees?

[d0gsb0dy]

Quite right, Steve. This situation was not of BA's making. They are unfortunate in that the baggage handlers came out in sympathy with the catering staff, thus unjustly harming BA. Gate Gourmet's only connection with BA was that they supplied meals.

[stevie_c2it]

Firstly, I haven't seen a single representative of the media saying 'sack them all', and I've been following this story closely.

Secondly, the only element of druiaghtagh's question/opinion thats based on any understanding of the commercial realities of life is, that Gate Gourmet are probably losing money. So the question is this, should the company have effected harsh redundancies on some of its staff and kept going, or allow itself to go bankrupt and let everyone lose there jobs?  

I'm in agreement with those AB'ers who might suggest the situation was badly mis-managed by poor management at Gate Gourmet, however BA will conservatively lose around �40m (before compensation payouts) and although they are a large company, this loss will undoubtably cause them to cut jobs within there own organisation. Particularly bearing in mind that BA have recently undergone a period of painful modernising and restructuring in order to avoid becoming an economic casualty of the more commercially competative times in which we live. Potentially we are talking about more unemployment and hardship for its workers.

If we follow bernados words of wisdom, and embrace 'fraternal solidarity' against 'the fuedalistic oligarchy of BA' we can all claim a moral victory against 'The bosses' while causing hundreds more rank and file workers to lose jobs and livelyhoods! Idiocy!

[bernardo]

It is BA's responsibility in the sense that BA employed Gate Gourmet and is therefore responsible for the way their sub-contractors are treated.  I don't disagree with the idea of sacking people if necessary, but the way it was done in this instance was most insensitive and over-the-top.

[SteveD]

If BA and Gate Gourmet are two completely separate companies, I do not see how BA can be held responsible for the internal affairs of Gate Gourmet.

[Ding-Dong]

Like her or loath her, Thatcher was a brilliant politician and a very effective leader - in my opinion, the best post-war PM we've had.

Alas, comments such as 'Witch Thatcher' generally smacks of ignorance of her achievements, one of which is the outlawing of 'sympathy' strikes.

I (wrongly it turns out) thought the days where the candlestick makers went on strike because the butchers were told to take 10 mins for a tea break as opposed to 15 were long behind us.

Intrinsically unions are a good thing, they protect and help their members, but when you have a union leader or a shop steward pi55ed with power, they are unwieldly monsters that do more harm than good (look at Scargill).

Sadly, the people affected were the innocent passengers who were forced to endure hours upon hours of uncertainty - it was a despicable act from a bunch of pillocks.

And to echo somebody elses point - if a company is losing money, something has to be done: this is a fact of business life - accept it and go and get another job.

[Loosehead]

Hear Hear Ding-Dong!

[ursula62]

I don't believe BA are responsible for the way Gate Gourmet treated their staff just because they contracted out the provision of catering services to them.

That would be a bit like saying Tesco is responsible for how animals are treated on an individual farm.

I feel very sorry for BA  - the dispute wasn't with them at all, it was between Gate Gourmet and its employees.

The illegal wildcat strike by baggage handlers caused BA's involvement in this, not BA.

[druiaghtagh]

The secondary pickets of B.A  should make us proud to be British as they are prepared to risk their livelihood to help the exploited workers of Gate Gourmet . It now arises in the press that this action by the management planned this confrontation and have got what they wanted so they can bring in cheap labour from poland on even less than the poor wages of their own sacked workers.I did indeed come through the Thatcher years(i'm 54) and still remeber the Poll Tax, can anybody on here argue that this particular tax was fair? I stand by my comments about her being a witch, she was responsible for so much hardship for the working class typical of her Party at the time whom saw us as peasants . Would those of you who disagree with my comments wish to return to the days when millionaire bosses hired and fired at will?, i still hope that these fellow trade unionists can get a happy outcome to their dispute

[noseyno]

most poeple who don't agree with strikes have never been asked to take strike action. but just look at whats happening to jobs. Idon't think we are losing money from our call centres, but we keep closing call centres and moving them to other countries(where the use very cheap labour) but we just let them do it. IF it was your job that was being taken would you not fight to save it. I used the call centres but this happens in all areas

[Ding-Dong]

One out all out comrade - the bourgeoisie are evil for wanting to turn a profit whilst cruelly stomping on the proletariat.

Marx and Engels must be delighted there are still brothers and sisters about that keep alive the strike mentality of Vic Spanner of W C Boggs' Lavatory Factory alive and well.

PS - The Poll Tax was fairer than the current system.