Strike threat at BT as boss gets £3m pay package

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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

Yes, however over 80% of certain banks are owned by unwilling shareholders as opposed to voluntary / speculative shareholders. There is no point / little comfort in using the term "partly nationalised" as this is part of the old school labour spin. The fact is the banks are in a pit of poo which they are not about to get out of any time soon and they face further dilemmas in the very near future.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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.

I think you are missing the points I was trying to make.

You, as an individual, are entirely entitled not to join or support a union. That right does not, however, obviate the democratic rights of others to collectively exercise their democratic right to do so and to exercise whatever (legal) action they might deem necessary to secure their rights / employment.

Never assume the unions are working to an anti-government or anti competitive agenda.

Bear in mind that if unions fought for their membership and their membership only then certain economic ideals would be realized even quicker than the coalition could hope for in that they (industry / government) could cut (streamline) workforces as they saw fit and the remaining (unionised) workforces would be forced to prove themselves more productive with the overall wage defecit spread over a shorter (unionised) base.

I see from your info that you are 31. As such your entire working life experience since reaching voting age has, with the exception of the past two weeks, taken place under what can only be described as a disasterous labour administration. On that premise I think I'm fairly safe in assuming that you have little or no real recollection of the Thatcher era and the policies of the then day.

You have a lot of unlearning to do, believe me. What lies ahead for Britain under the tory / lib dem coalition (through no fault of their own I hasten to add) will cause catastrophic implosions in all sectors of all industries. People who currently believe there is no "use" or "need" for a union or their participation in one are about to embark on a very steep learning curve.

As for the being "shareholders" (and in some cases majority shareholders) of certain high street banks the fact is that the tax payers needlessly propped up banks which otherwise would have failed.

Any assertion that banks that are largely owned by the tax payer should invest in less efficient companies so that they'll pay their staff more is no more ludicrous than proposing to bail out the very same banks in the first place because of their fiscal ineptitude and greed and their continued wanting to reward failure at your / my / our collective expense.

"What's good for the goose.....". etc.

I've really no wish, nor indeed the energy nor compunction, to get into this discussion other than to reiterate that people have a democratic right to be unionised and any move to forsake that democratic right for future generations just because the country has been dragged into the financial gutter by the actions of an industry fuelled by greed and which continues to show little or no compassion for its customers / saviours (as opposed to savers) would be a very, very foolish sacrifice to make.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Never assume the unions are working to an anti-government or anti competitive agenda.

I assume that the unions are anti-everything that doesn't fit their ideology or aims. Seeing a union poster pre-election threatening Tory cuts was quite enough to indicate an agenda, along with their being the major funder of the Labour party.

There's a nice load of cash in union chests for a PR offensive against the current government.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

Bear in mind that if unions fought for their membership and their membership only then certain economic ideals would be realized even quicker than the coalition could hope for in that they (industry / government) could cut (streamline) workforces as they saw fit and the remaining (unionised) workforces would be forced to prove themselves more productive with the overall wage defecit spread over a shorter (unionised) base.

I'm unsure that I see what your point is with this paragraph. I can easily imagine this being a nightmare rather than doing the coalition or industry any favours. A fully unionised workforce has little incentive to be productive knowing they can rely on collective bargaining to ensure that they work less and are paid more than non-unionised workers.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

see from your info that you are 31. As such your entire working life experience since reaching voting age has, with the exception of the past two weeks, taken place under what can only be described as a disasterous labour administration. On that premise I think I'm fairly safe in assuming that you have little or no real recollection of the Thatcher era and the policies of the then day.

You have a lot of unlearning to do, believe me. What lies ahead for Britain under the tory / lib dem coalition (through no fault of their own I hasten to add) will cause catastrophic implosions in all sectors of all industries. People who currently believe there is no "use" or "need" for a union or their participation in one are about to embark on a very steep learning curve.

Looking back on history the unions caused catastrophic economic issues in the not that distant past. Their mandate is to totally ignore everything bar what they want for their members which will inevitably cause intense friction and social unrest in its' own right.

It should be noted that unions financially propped up said disastrous administration and are its' largest donor by some way now, it being very clear to almost everyone bar unions that they are totally inept. The opinion of at least two of the unions is that no-one loses their jobs and we all pay a little more tax. Great plan.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

As for the being "shareholders" (and in some cases majority shareholders) of certain high street banks the fact is that the tax payers needlessly propped up banks which otherwise would have failed.

Any assertion that banks that are largely owned by the tax payer should invest in less efficient companies so that they'll pay their staff more is no more ludicrous than proposing to bail out the very same banks in the first place because of their fiscal ineptitude and greed and their continued wanting to reward failure at your / my / our collective expense.

"What's good for the goose.....". etc.

Likewise "Two wrongs don't make a right.".

I want us, the taxpayer, to get our money back, with interest from the banks as quickly as is feasible. I have no interest at all in seeing the banks propping up companies so that they can pay their unionised workers more, I see that as grossly unfair on everyone who isn't unionised. We already historically pay more for our goods and services thanks to union powered wage inflation.

Originally Posted by Mr Angry

I've really no wish, nor indeed the energy nor compunction, to get into this discussion other than to reiterate that people have a democratic right to be unionised and any move to forsake that democratic right for future generations just because the country has been dragged into the financial gutter by the actions of an industry fuelled by greed and which continues to show little or no compassion for its customers / saviours (as opposed to savers) would be a very, very foolish sacrifice to make.

I agree unionisation is a right, however I also think that a lot of reform is needed. The BA strike - striking due to not receiving a perk that isn't on any contract at the same level as before is ridiculous.

Unions meddle in politics at will, own the second largest party, and increasingly seem set on having public sector and ex-public sector business employees strike at a whim.

I'm frankly sick of these guys holding using us to blackmail their employers into giving them what they want. From BA to that communist twit Bob Crow and his crew through to this. No doubt Crow's cronies will be blackmailing London for a load more money and holiday around the 2012 Olympics, as those 7 weeks of paid leave per year clearly aren't enough, BA's overpaid (over double Virgin) cabin crews will continue to strike at times which cause maximum disruption, and if the BT staff strike it'll be us again that suffer.

My opinion has always been, and remains, that if you don't like your job get another one or deal with it, it's not rocket science. Unions are a throwback to that state of mind that largely only exists in the public sector and ex-public sector of a job for life.

Of course purely my opinion.

---------- Post added at 23:45 ---------- Previous post was at 23:44 ----------

Originally Posted by budwieser

Dude, You`ve changed since you used to be `Broadbandings`.

Indeed, I grew up

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Indeed, I grew up

and became a distant memory

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

[LondonRoad]

Too tired and too little time to contribute too much of a constructive nature too this thread.

However, Broadbandings, your hijacking of a thread on a subject you clearly don't get is a bit disappointing. You contribute massively to this forum but let yourself down greatly by the thatcherite, daily mail, Rupert Murdoch ramblings you have offered so far in this thread.

I'll be the first to admit that the Trade Union movement has had many moments in the past that have been shameful. Those of us who can see beyond that know that the contribution Unions made, and continue to make, to the conditions that we are all subjected to in our working life more than makes up for that.

I'd be very surprised if some of the disputes that fee paying trade unionists have had to suffer in the past haven't improved your lot. Perhaps, not as much as the imperialists of the past, but certainly with less bloodshed.

[speedfreak]

Hmm I had a long reply preplanned but with the recent posts thats gone out the window. Heres my comparison that MAY relate to you, my Mum and sister are both Conveyancers/property lawyers. They get head hunted, get to negotiate pay and conditions and if they dont like it they can do as you say and go elsewhere. They do well out of it but if you are part of a huge workforce of for example 8000 engineers all doing the same job then what are you to do to get better pay/terms? No matter what you think of unions its the members that make up the union, its the members that vote. Members arent stupid, you can say all you want about unions twisting things to push things their way, its no different to the run up to an election.
The difference is if you are an expert in your field and hold a job of your own, you have more opportunities, the general workforce of big companies dont have that luxury

Forgetting all the union/politics side of everything, in answer to the thread, I can see BT workers point of view. I think it was yourself that mentioned big staff cuts, yet this guy is paid £3M? You being a Tory guy and with Cameron taking a pay cut to show he his serious Im surprised you havent been a little more sympathetic towards the BT workers.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Indeed, I grew up

Did you grow up, or did you stop caring?

[speedfreak]

Its turning in to somewhat of an Iggy bashing thread but I must admit this just reinforces my view that the better off you are the more you stop caring about other people. I know if I win the lottery i wont end up that way, whenever I daydream about winning the first thing I think about is who I will spend it on

[danielf]

Originally Posted by speedfreak

Its turning in to somewhat of an Iggy bashing thread but I must admit this just reinforces my view that the better off you are the more you stop caring about other people. I know if I win the lottery i wont end up that way, whenever I daydream about winning the first thing I think about is who I will spend it on

Careful now. You'll be branded a champagne Socialist!!!

[jrhnewark]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I agree unionisation is a right, however I also think that a lot of reform is needed. The BA strike - striking due to not receiving a perk that isn't on any contract at the same level as before is ridiculous.

If I may - I'm a union rep for a very good trade union working in a communications sector. I'm in my 20s, so if you wouldn't mind not going on about "job for life" stuff, I'd appreciate it; I didn't buy into a job for life, but I did buy into one where when we made an agreement as employees with the company we work for, they'd stick to it.

I'm not going to go into anything further detail as to what part of the comms sector I work in, but put it this way, the local management in the company I work for recently decided it didn't like a perk that was part of an agreement that the COMPANY put forward 18 months beforehand. It was costing them too much money in the sense that their own cost-cutting performance related incentives may be affected. It's a VERY profitable company.

The BA situation is slightly different in that BA have got themselves into an idiotic situation where they're uncompetitive, however, they nonetheless have an obligation to their employees.

Ignitionnet - as you've clearly never been exposed to the relevant employment laws, you might not understand that the law of this country dictates that contracts are not only explicit but also contain implied terms.

Implied terms are those that have been negotiated or put in place outside of the usual terms of the contract. Your usual terms may include 25 days leave and a salary, but will not include things like share incentives or perks provided due to the relevant sector you're in (i.e. travel perks in the travel sector).

So, in summary, what the BA staff want is their contractual benefits reinstating. Before you try and tell people they're not contractually binding, you might want to understand what you're taking about, if I may be so blunt!

[Kellargh]

They all get paid more than me, and I haven't had a payrise in 4 years...my wage is edging closer and closer to minimum wage but there's no point in fighting for a lost cause. The only way you can better yourself is by going elsewhere, which is exactly what I'm trying to do. You don't see me calling strike action on Mr Neil, because at the end of it all you are a number that can be easily replaced - much like these guys, where I for one would jump at the chance to get their wages instead.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by jrhnewark

If I may - I'm a union rep for a very good trade union working in a communications sector. I'm in my 20s, so if you wouldn't mind not going on about "job for life" stuff, I'd appreciate it; I didn't buy into a job for life, but I did buy into one where when we made an agreement as employees with the company we work for, they'd stick to it.

I'm not going to go into anything further detail as to what part of the comms sector I work in, but put it this way, the local management in the company I work for recently decided it didn't like a perk that was part of an agreement that the COMPANY put forward 18 months beforehand. It was costing them too much money in the sense that their own cost-cutting performance related incentives may be affected. It's a VERY profitable company.

The BA situation is slightly different in that BA have got themselves into an idiotic situation where they're uncompetitive, however, they nonetheless have an obligation to their employees.

Ignitionnet - as you've clearly never been exposed to the relevant employment laws, you might not understand that the law of this country dictates that contracts are not only explicit but also contain implied terms.

Implied terms are those that have been negotiated or put in place outside of the usual terms of the contract. Your usual terms may include 25 days leave and a salary, but will not include things like share incentives or perks provided due to the relevant sector you're in (i.e. travel perks in the travel sector).

So, in summary, what the BA staff want is their contractual benefits reinstating. Before you try and tell people they're not contractually binding, you might want to understand what you're taking about, if I may be so blunt!

I'm aware of this, duty of trust and confidence, but thank you for the reminder. I'll wait and see the result of the legal case on this matter before I agree, as of now it is not a contractual perk. I do see a case Unite brought against BA earlier this year about cabin crew cuts, which they lost, so evidently they don't have that strong an aversion to legal action.

The opinions of other BA staff on this matter are quite amusing.

[frogstamper]

Originally Posted by ignitionet

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.

Inflammatory statements like the above do absolutely nothing to contribute to a balanced and fair debate, its the same sort of dogma you can read in the Daily Hate everyday.
I was a member of SLADE aka the print union for years, and at times they were very helpful indeed, to make a blanket claim that union members are lazy and insecure is not only pathetic but downright bloody offensive. I have never expected a job for life from any firm if ever worked for, far from it, I spent my career seeing if other print firms in my area can offer better prospects or conditions, aided I might add from the union.
As mentioned above you make some very good contributions to all sorts of threads ignitionet, but as soon as you get on subjects like the market you defer to plain old dogma each time, dogma that would make Norman Tebbitt blush.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

Inflammatory statements like the above do absolutely nothing to contribute to a balanced and fair debate, its the same sort of dogma you can read in the Daily Hate everyday.

Everyones entitled to an opinion. Personally I'm siding with Ignitionnet on this one.

[Chrysalis]

if the exec came out and said I will take 2% and 'no' bonus, I would say they been silly.

but hes got a monster bonus and that is clearly going to upset the workforce when they dont get the same. By accepting the bonus he has created a us and them feeling in the company, instead of the we all a team.

Agreed - all should share the burden.