Originally Posted by papa smurf (Post 35028647)

so what do you think do they have a good reason to strike or should they accept 2% ??

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35028661)

BT have shed 1/5th of their staff in a bid to get profitable and still have a massive pension deficit to deal with. It should be noted that while the bonuses at the top are a big headline maker they are performance related and 10s of thousands of BT staff received performance related bonuses.

A lot of employees aren't getting big payrises this year. Sadly the public sector and ex-public sector are, as ever, keen to go whine to the unions and go on strike.

No they aren't justified to go on strike. There are very few reasons to go on strike. If they think they're worth more money, perks, benefits and pension rewards than they are getting at BT they can go work elsewhere.

Originally Posted by speedfreak (Post 35028673)

I agree with the first part of your post but Ive never understood the mentality behind statements like the last sentence. Where else would they work doing the job that they are trained to do? If workers and the unions didnt push for better pay etc do you just think management would just give a pay rise every year?

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35028686)

I get a pay rise every year and don't need a union to push for it for me so I have no idea what you're referring to there. It's not a requirement, you just need to be valuable enough to the employer that it is worth their while improving your pay to retain your services.

Regarding what they're trained to do, BT aren't the only telco in the world and if they are only capable of working for one company it's their problem they have so few options.

I think unions are a relic of a bygone era that act as a comfort blanket for those who think they are entitled to a job for life with one company and who are too lazy / insecure / indifferent to risk changing their employer so the union tries to change their job.

If they don't have the skills to get another job which is better paid, then bluntly that is the going rate for their skills and they can either upgrade or add additional ones or deal with it.

Perhaps I'm just fortunate that I'm evidently coming from an alternative viewpoint where my employer compensates me in order to retain their services as they don't want to lose me rather than being of the opinion that I'm easy to replace and they don't care.

Unions aren't there to stick up for the workers they are there to keep the fat arse socialists that run them in jobs. They look for disharmony in workforces and need to amplify it in order to justify their existence and give them things to do. When they ballot their members for strikes they are actively campaigning for staff to strike and are all too happy to give them disinformation in order to get their way. In addition their political influence over the Labour party is, in a modern democracy, totally distasteful. Having the second largest political party in the country in the pocket both financially and in terms of voting power in internal decisions of bodies with so little relevance to modern Britain is, again, totally distasteful.

Unions should have been gotten rid of once the actual reason for their existence, getting basic rights for workers, was enshrined in law. There was a time when unions actually gave two hoots about society at large, these days they just seem to look for ways to keep themselves busy by causing society grief. Can I also point out that virtually all the union related grief stems from public sector or formerly public sector employers.

Either way a lot of people are getting zero payrise again this year. Times are hard, BT themselves only made profits through cost cutting. Many are fine with it if it guarantees a job next year, though of course for the unions and their members this isn't good enough.

Originally Posted by zing (Post 35028706)

all this from the guy with how many zeros???

Sorry dude but you are not working class you may have worked your way through working class but from how you post you seem to forget what it was like being there.

Originally Posted by zing (Post 35028648)

they should strike. I am sick and fed up with fat cats like this getting rediculas pay packets and the workers who afterall keep the company going cuz without them well its game over aint it. It does extract the urine.

Originally Posted by zing (Post 35028706)

The class system ( which does still exist in this country irrelevant of what el gov think) needs all levels to work. Without the working class who would empty your bins? clean your water? do all the menial jobs that need the bottom end to do or the country would be knee deep in real crap instead of the proverbial

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35028754)

If we're playing that game without the 'management' class who would be running these companies, opening new ones, investing and putting up the capital?

Overpaying workers causes inflation, inflation is not nice. Upsetting shareholders and investors makes capital harder to raise.

I didn't get 5% this year and my company had a record year both in terms of revenue and profit with zero pension deficit.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35028754)

If we're playing that game without the 'management' class who would be running these companies, opening new ones, investing and putting up the capital?

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35028754)

Overpaying workers causes inflation, inflation is not nice. Upsetting shareholders and investors makes capital harder to raise.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35028754)

I didn't get 5% this year and my company had a record year both in terms of revenue and profit with zero pension deficit.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35028763)

Essentially that would be the banks - the ones we all own.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35028763)

Which isn't helped by the attitude of the banks - the ones we all own.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry (Post 35028763)

Speak to your union. ;)

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35028767)

That would be the shareholders, which would include far more than just the partly nationalised banks ;)




Irresponsibility and being too relaxed got them into the mess, wouldn't want them to get back into trouble by not being suitably controlled with their extension of capital again now would we?

For banks to do well they must invest properly and wisely, so if companies aren't running efficiently they are obliged to invest in better run companies to get a better return for their own shareholders - us the taxpayers.

It seems a bit odd to suggest that the banks that are largely owned by the tax payer should invest in less efficient companies so that they'll pay their staff more. Strikes me as suggesting the public as a whole should subsidise unionised workers. We already do that quite enough to the detriment of their non-unionised industry colleagues.



I did - and the union of one (me) was perfectly content as he received performance related bonus and everything was in line with the industry rather than being a random figure picked out of the union's rectum.

It could be worse. My union of one could have been the same union that took lower pay rises for other members in other companies this year while complaining about this one not compensating for inflation and ignoring that the employees of this particular company already receive higher pay and better perks than others in the industry.

Same syndrome as BA really, striking despite being better paid and having better perks than those who aren't ex-public sector.