On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:33:06 GMT, Geoffrey
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:38:13 +0100, Andy Hall
wrote:

The catering company laid people off. I really don/t see what
business that is of the airline staff, baggage handlers etc.

Firstly, the catering company didn't lay people off, they fired them.

I used the expression "laid people off" in the generic sense, be it
termination for cause, redundancy or temporary stand down.

Whatever the reason is, it is not justification for employees of other
companies or in totally unrelated areas to withdraw their labour on
the basis of said dispute.

Secondly you have to realise that the ground staff at an airport are a
bit like a village. They all know each other and are a pretty close
knit community. When a big part of your community gets fired, you get
mad.

That's fine, but this should not be without consequences for those
withdrawing their labour on this basis and liability for any union
involvement.



Once upon a time, the Unions were there to make sure the *******
employers treated their workers decently. Maggie put an end to that
(and BTW an end to rather a lot of jobs at the same time) but there
are vestiges left - hence the rather impressive cessation of BA
flights.

Hopefully those vestiges will pass, justifiably into industrial
history as soon as possible.

The consequences of inappropriate union strength and especially of
secondary action are very obvious in terms of their eventual effect on
sectors where they were typical in the 60s and 70s.



Sometimes people have to fight back. There comes a time when some
people say "stuff that - you cannot continue to treat people like
serfs and we'll bloody well show you that you can't".

Of course. However, it is not appropriate to do so if you are not
directly involved in the dispute as an employee.



I feel sympathy for all the people who had their holidays ruined but I
daresay the sacked catering staff wish they could afford the
occasional foreign holiday and I expect the directors of BA will still
get their large bonuses and long holidays at the end of the year while
their minions continue to work for minimum wage with a smile on their
faces, glad to have a job.

The catering firm has been in a situation where it hasn't made a
profit since 2000 and its revenues have fallen 35% since 2001. Faced
with the reality of that, there is no other option than to find ways
to restructure the business and to cut costs. They had tried for
several months to reach agreements with unions and employees and
change working practices in order to match the reality that they are
working in.

Part of that reality (I believe a small part) is said to be due to the
WTC bombings. I think that a much bigger part is the change in the
market dynamic of people wanting cheap and no frills air travel. THe
inevitable consequence of that is that business of the airline
catering firms is adversely affected.

I can't find anything to suggest that the company's offer was outside
the law, but was what was required to secure the future of the
company, which is not a charitable organisation. If, at the end of
the day, some of the employees don't want to accept what's on offer,
they have the option of looking for other jobs or doing as they did
and withdrawing their labour. However, they can't expect to do so
without there being consequences of termination of employment if said
activity puts them outside their employment contract.

As to the directors of BA or even the middle managers.... they work
for a different company. However, their bonuses should be hit for
not having a contingency in place in terms of an alternative catering
supplier and alternative baggage handling.




In a few weeks, everyone will have forgotten about it, the catering
company will get "new" management and will be manage to sack the
workers quietly and with no fuss.

--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl