Can someone PLEASE tell me something?

[NoaHall]

What does this mean in terms of other terminals than Heathrow 5?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8417148.stm

I've booked a flight on the 23rd, with SAS, in terminal 3. BA only owns terminal 5. So will SAS ground services be on strike in terminal 3, or just 5? If so, does this look good or bad for my flight?

[howefield]

Bad.

http://www.unitetheunion.com/news__events/latest_news/sort_out_pay_mess_to_avoid_bag.aspx?lang=en-gb

Unless I'm reading it wrong, the SAS ground workers dispute is seperate from the BA cabin workers dispute.

But with more than a week to go, I'd almost put money on it being settled before then. All you can do is wait... and maybe look at the rail timetables..

Also bear in mind, no one here can give you anything other than opinion and conjecture, both not worth a toss.

[NoaHall]

But how vital are they to the whole thing? I mean, surely the ground services could be replaced? (apart from that stupid no-replacing-those-on-strike-law)

We planned this whole trip, knowing that BA would probably strike, planning around it, using a different airline, different terminal, and now this happens! Typical!

*Gets out angry-writing-keyboard-of-mass-insults*

[squilookle]

(apart from that stupid no-replacing-those-on-strike-law

I wouldn't say it was stupid... its inconvenient for the company and disasterous for those that have flights booked (I'm flying from london to antwerp on 23 december. not flying with ba, and I'm not sure if there will be knock on effects with other airlines. Not even sure if ba fly from the airport we will be using...)

I don't agree vwith the ba strike as I think going in with a twelve day strike is over the top, and the company made some big losses last year and I believe they are set to do the same again.

However, in general, many employers take the 'micheal', and the staff/unions have to have the rights/tools to stand up for themselves and get a fair deal, or else in tge besr case we will all be overworked and unserpaid, and in the worst case, laid off to save money.

[howefield]

..I think going in with a twelve day strike is over the top,...

I think the reason for this is that anything less would mean some staff not "contributing" to the strike, because of the way shift patterns work.

[dragos240]

something

[LinuxFanBoi]

(apart from that stupid no-replacing-those-on-strike-law)

As a proud card carrying Member of the Transport Worker Local 721, I must say that I wholeheartedly wish it was illegal in the US to replace a striking labor force with scabs. It takes all incentive away from management to bargain in good faith.

While I'm sympathetic to your Plight Noa, but I must respect any labor force who is united enough to stand up for what they believe is right.

I think you should call SAS and demand that they negotiate a resolution to this labor issue and get their company running again. If there is no resolution, I think you could probably get them to transfer your flight to another airline. Airlines move their customers to other airlines frequently, and I think in this situation they would have to accommodate you.

[alexfish]

What does this mean in terms of other terminals than Heathrow 5?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8417148.stm

I've booked a flight on the 23rd, with SAS, in terminal 3. BA only owns terminal 5. So will SAS ground services be on strike in terminal 3, or just 5? If so, does this look good or bad for my flight?

What do you want to Know

[realman5]

I think SAS will operate the flights despite the strike threat. Check with them.

[alexfish]

I think SAS will operate the flights despite the strike threat. Check with them.

Wear ALL The Clothes You Can MaximiZe Your Hand Luggage They only Quote The Size Not the QTY Not mention The Plastic Bags You Accumulate From Your Supper Market
Throughout The Year

Best Advice Go Prepared

And Have A merry Christmas

[ice60]

it says this

Unite says the stoppages will affect travellers on Emirates, Turkish and Thai airlines at Heathrow.maybe i'm being dim lol. are you travelling with any of them?

the unions are scum of the earth. i'd have no problem sacking them all and shooting all the heads of unions. i always give strikers grief when ever i see them striking lol.

[NoaHall]

it says this
maybe i'm being dim lol. are you travelling with any of them?

the unions are scum of the earth. i'd have no problem sacking them all and shooting all the heads of unions. i always give strikers grief when ever i see them striking lol.

Well, we the customers should be protected in situations like this. It's a lot of money we're talking about, we can't just throw it away.

I'm not on any of those, however, I am flying with SAS.

[earthpigg]

As a proud card carrying Member of the Transport Worker Local 721, I must say that I wholeheartedly wish it was illegal in the US to replace a striking labor force with scabs. It takes all incentive away from management to bargain in good faith.

While I'm sympathetic to your Plight Noa, but I must respect any labor force who is united enough to stand up for what they believe is right.

oh? what about those labor forces that make union membership damn near mandatory? how does the bolded part apply to them -- of course they carry the union cards and pay dues. they don't have a choice!

reading about the California Teacher's Unions and the "mediocracy" that exists among CA teachers is what eventually turned me off to that vocation.

and this:

I wholeheartedly wish it was illegal in the US to replace a striking labor force with scabs.

if your skill was actually of any non-trivial value, scabs would not be an option. your union concerns are already addressed by minimum wage and other labor laws.

you do have the right to vote, right?

TLDR: i oppose any law outlawing or infringing the rights of unions (except public servants such as teachers, vital transportation employees, firemen, soldiers, garbage disposal men, etc... if you don't want to serve the public, then quit). i also oppose any law that specifically empowers unions. if you want to work there under conditions offered by the company, do so. if not, quit. if your skill is truly of any value (ie: not baggage handlers or burger flippers), then your union will justifiably have success.




Also, i am a normal size dude. if i can pick the bag up and move it 5 feet, then i certainly expect a baggage-picker-upper-and-mover to be able to do the same. screw 20kg/45lbs limits.

and screw the airlines for painting as if it where the fault of the Unions -- obviously, the luggaige weight limit is about aircraft fuel.

[LinuxFanBoi]

your union concerns are already addressed by minimum wage and other labor laws.

If you knew anything about Labor Unions, Labor laws and a little bit of history, You would know that we would not have things like Minimum wage, 40 hour work week, 5 day work week, Overtime, Holiday pay, Sick pay, OSHA, etc., had it not been for the organized labor movement of the early 20th century. The agreements negotiated by the union leaders are binding on the rank and file members and the employer and in some cases on other non-member workers[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union#cite_note-webb-1). How easily we forget.


oh? what about those labor forces that make union membership damn near mandatory? how does the bolded part apply to them -- of course they carry the union cards and pay dues. they don't have a choice!

In Nevada, as well as most other states in the US, we have a law known as `right to work`[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law), this law provides every employee with the choice to work without paying union dues. The thing about right to work laws you may find interesting is this; You still enjoy the benefits of a collective bargaining agreement whilst not paying union dews. The difference is, the union that is still required by law to represent you, has the option to let you vote on union matters or not.

Next misconception about organized labor?

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_union#cite_note-webb-1
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-to-work_law

[HappinessNow]

something
beat me to it!

... something, again.

[Grenage]

Unions were once handy, in today's world they are (in the UK at least) a bunch of corrupt tossers; this strike is a perfect example.

A company hundreds of millions of pounds in debt, paying twice the industry average wage, making cutbacks. That's not poor working conditions or unfair treatment, that's business.



I've booked a flight on the 23rd, with SAS, in terminal 3. BA only owns terminal 5. So will SAS ground services be on strike in terminal 3, or just 5? If so, does this look good or bad for my flight?

You won't be affected.

[LinuxFanBoi]

Unions were once handy, in today's world they are (in the UK at least) a bunch of corrupt tossers; this strike is a perfect example.

This is an unsupported generalization. Meaningless internet gobledy-gook.

[Grenage]

No, it's the cold, hard truth; unions are a complete crock. If you don't like your job, leave and get another one. Every strike in the UK over the last 20 years has been nothing more than a bunch of cretins trying to curry undeserved sympathy by inconveniencing the country. That's my opinion.

You may not agree, that's your opinion.

[LinuxFanBoi]

No, it's the cold, hard truth; unions are a complete crock. If you don't like your job, leave and get another one. Every strike in the UK over the last 20 years has been nothing more than a bunch of cretins trying to curry undeserved sympathy by inconveniencing the country. That's my opinion.

When you combine the phrase "it's the cold, hard truth" and "That's my opinion," Without providing anything to support your statements you make yourself sound very, very ignorant.

[Grenage]

You sound like an anachronistic union fan, stuck in a time where they were beneficial to anyone, but hey.

In today's world employees have a massive amount of rights, company's practically tremble at the prospect of upsetting them. Unions are no longer required; if you need me to cite examples then you are making yourself appear very, very blind.

[LinuxFanBoi]

You sound like an anachronistic union fan

Yes, I've worked my *** off for the better part of a decade to get the highest paying Casino dealing job on earth. Through organization, we intend to ensure that it remains the highest paid casino dealing job on earth. We united to form what is now the Las Vegas Dealers Local 721 because of a looming threat on the horizon that threatens the very foundation of what makes our income the highest casino dealing income in the world. Because of our efforts to organize, our employer has been legally forbidden to follow in the footsteps another casino owner who is illegally confiscating the dealers gratuities and distributing them as they see fit amongst members of management.


In today's world employees have a massive amount of rights,

Thank god for that. In The US though, the current power structure has made it so you only have the rights you can afford to defend. If you don't have the resources to challenge an infringement of your legal rights, you might as well not have any at all. This is where organized labor becomes a necessity. As a united group, a labor union has the resources to go to court and defend their rights.


Unions are no longer required

Tell that to the casino dealers at the Wynn Resort in Las Vegas, where Steve Wynn decided one day to take 20% of the gratuities from his casino dealers whom he only pays minimum wage and give those gratuities to members of management with salaries in the neighborhood of $60,000 per year. A practice forbidden by N.R.S. 608-160 and is currently being challenged through the legal process. Even with a law on the books that "protects" these dealers, their employer is counting on the fact this his resources will outlast the resouces of the people whom he is stealing from. It sure would have been nice to be protected by a union contract before this happened.

So yeah, I'm a righteous union fan and will be until the day I die.

[Grenage]

owner who is illegally confiscating the dealers gratuities

It's illegal, so why is there a problem? They can report it.

[hidinginthemountains]

No, it's the cold, hard truth; unions are a complete crock. If you don't like your job, leave and get another one. Every strike in the UK over the last 20 years has been nothing more than a bunch of cretins trying to curry undeserved sympathy by inconveniencing the country. That's my opinion.

You may not agree, that's your opinion.

I can tell you for a fact that you should thank your stars that my job is unionised. If it wasn't the companies in my industry would abuse the laws even worse. If someone in my position makes a mistake there is the potential for extreme damage to property, the environment, and large scale loss of life. We are subject to being called to work 24/7 with no schedule, and can be worked up to 18 of 24 hours by law. Whatever your little job is Grenage, a mistake on your part would not have the same potential that a mistake by me or my fellow trades people would.

But when we strike for safety reasons we have to listen to air-heads who know nothing at all about the job or industry spout their prepossessed notions about how unions are <insert one of the standard derogatory union slanders here>. When we strike for quality of life reasons, commercial reporters will spout company press releases verbatim without ever investigating the truth of the statements. And if we strike for pay (rare in my craft) we have to listen about how if we "don't like it we should leave it".

I hope that next time under-qualified scabs/managers are called in to do my job somewhere, that you are in the area. Typically their accidents go unreported, but if we brothers and sisters are lucky it will be all you and yours who are in the neighborhood when things go sideways.

Unlike your opinion, mine is based on first hand knowledge and a recognition of historical importance, rather than the ramblings of media pundits and a broad failure to understand the societal value of our kind of organization.

[benj1]

You sound like an anachronistic union fan, stuck in a time where they were beneficial to anyone, but hey.

In today's world employees have a massive amount of rights, company's practically tremble at the prospect of upsetting them. Unions are no longer required; if you need me to cite examples then you are making yourself appear very, very blind.

in some of the jobs ive had, i would have been glad of some sort of union presence, unions are required because unfortunately there are many unscrupulous employers, yes we have laws but unfortunately many of us aren't lawyers, and many breaches are hard to prove.

[LinuxFanBoi]

It's illegal, so why is there a problem? They can report it.

The legal process costs money. Do you honestly believe that the majority or workers can afford the upfront costs involved in legal action against a multi national corporation? Organized labor affords them that opportunity. A labor union through the collection of union dues would have lawyers on retainer to handle such matters.

Unfortunately, in the real world it's not effective enough to simply call or write the labor commissioner and claim an injustice has occurred. The process is more complicated than that, so much so it's impossible for the average person to navigate the system without legal assistance, which is prohibitively expensive.


Unlike your opinion, mine is based on first hand knowledge and a recognition of historical importance, rather than the ramblings of media pundits and a broad failure to understand the societal value of our kind of organization.

Thank god I'm not alone in this argument. Strength in number brother!

[benj1]

The legal process costs money. Do you honestly believe that the majority or workers can afford the upfront costs involved in legal action against a multi national corporation? Organized labor affords them that opportunity. A labor union through the collection of union dues would have lawyers on retainer to handle such matters.

Unfortunately, in the real world it's not effective enough to simply call or write the labor commissioner and claim an injustice has occurred. The process is more complicated than that, so much so it's impossible for the average person to navigate the system without legal assistance, which is prohibitively expensive.

to be fair in the uk we have employment tribunals which are a lot more friendly to non lawyers, and a lot cheaper as lawyers are discouraged but the fact does remain that you still have to 'navigate' the law

[LinuxFanBoi]

to be fair in the uk we have employment tribunals which are a lot more friendly to non lawyers, and a lot cheaper as lawyers are discouraged but the fact does remain that you still have to 'navigate' the law

Just to make a point here, it is because of concerted and organized efforts by labor unions that in the UK you have such a system. Just another example of how the benefits of organized labor extend beyond the union body.


Employment Tribunals were created as Industrial Tribunals by the Industrial Training Act 1964. Industrial Tribunals were judicial bodies consisting of a lawyer, who was the chairman, an individual nominated by an employer association, and another by the Trades Union Congress (TUC) or TUC-affiliated union. These independent panels heard and made legally-binding rulings in relation to employment law disputes. Under the Employment Rights (Dispute Resolution) Act 1998, their name was changed to Employment Tribunals from 1 August 1998.[1]. Employment Tribunals continue to perform the same function as the Industrial Tribunals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_tribunal#History

[Grenage]

I cannot speak for America or any country other than the UK, nor have I claimed to in any of my posts. Here employee disputes are essentially free to engage, and relatively simple. We have no need of unions.

History is nice as a point of reference, or some nostalgia; it has no place in today's business.

[LinuxFanBoi]

History is nice as a point of reference, or some nostalgia; it has no place in today's business.

If I say what I'm thinking in response to this statement, this thread is going to be closed I'm I'm likely to be censured by a forum admin.

I believe that you urgently need to read The Life of Reason by George Santayana. He said "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

[Grenage]

I appreciate that, and as much as it may appear to the contrary, I don't wish to antagonise you.

While I have not read that book, I am familiar with the phrase and the meaning behind it. While true, I don't believe that just because something was required, it will always be required. Awareness of how things were and could be is important, yes.

You obviously feel strongly about the importance of unions, and I cannot speak for you country's corporate workings. I'll make this my last post in this thread, lest we bash heads for eternity!

Take care.

[benj1]

I cannot speak for America or any country other than the UK, nor have I claimed to in any of my posts. Here employee disputes are essentially free to engage, and relatively simple. We have no need of unions.

History is nice as a point of reference, or some nostalgia; it has no place in today's business.

i suspect i am alot more knowledgeable than most on employment law having done a business degree an having worked in payroll for a couple of years, do i know all elements of employment law? no, do you know what wage deductions are legal or not, because i don't.

my last job was as a payroll administrator at a temping agency, racism was endemic at that place, i am sure that if an asian person applied for a job within the company (not as a temp) they wouldn't get it, is that legal? no, is it provable? very difficult.

then there were the temps, many working at minimum wage, many not british, nearly all having no idea of employment law, on numerous occasions i went up against the MD of the company, because somebody wanted to with hold a temps wages which is illegal, i was the one getting in trouble for paying someone without permission.

when i started, (about 2007) they had only just stopped making deductions from wages (for uniform etc) for those on the minimum wage, which is also illegal if it takes them below the minimum wage, they were caught by a government department not an employee taking them to court.

thats not even mentioning the morally dubious stuff such as selling insurance, most of which the employer would legally have to cover anyway, was extremely bad value, and for which the company was getting commission.

if there had of been a union involved, working conditions would have been alot better.

[LinuxFanBoi]

my last job was as a payroll administrator at a temping agency, racism was endemic at that place, i am sure that if an asian person applied for a job within the company (not as a temp) they wouldn't get it, is that legal? no, is it provable? very difficult.

In contrast, in my industry, the reverse is true. Our employers seem to realize that many Asian immigrants come from a place where our minimum wage is a tremendous sum of money and their typical working conditions are horrendous in comparison to ours. For this reason you tend to see a disproportionately high number of Asian emigrants in the casino industry. They tend to be willing to work longer hours for less pay and it is perceived by many, though may not be true that they are less apt to report violations of employment law.

Our union has been working feverishly to bring this demographic up to speed with regard to their rights under US law, as it seems no one else in management is going out of their way to educate them. We want them to understand that while they are Asian by birth, they are now Americans as well, and being an American comes special rights and great responsibility to defend them. This goes beyond just Asians, we find these things to be common among most newly naturalized Americans. I believe it is part of our duty as american citizens to welcome our new arrivals by arming them with knowledge and understanding of what it means to be an American, for if we don't their ignorance will certainly be exploited by those with money and power.

[NoaHall]

Guys, can you not talk about things which will get my thread locked?


Anyway, it seems my flight will be okay. Thanks anyway.

[ice60]

...you most certainly are.
lol i was right so you're wrong. good effort though.

we used to have a lot more union action in the uk until thatcher smashed them. there's a really good documentary on it - the miners' strike. the miners' leader wanted a marxist revolution, 1000s fought in the streets day after day for months on end, people were killed and in the end the marxists lost very badly lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orgreave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1984–1985)

[Xbehave]

lol i was right so you're wrong. good effort though.

we used to have a lot more union action in the uk until thatcher smashed them. there's a really good documentary on it - the miners' strike. the miners' leader wanted a marxist revolution, 1000s fought in the streets day after day for months on end, people were killed and in the end the marxists lost very badly lol.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Orgreave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1984–1985)
LOL have you read the links you gave,

In 1990, the Daily Mirror and TV programme "The Cook Report" claimed that Scargill and the NUM had received money from the Libyan government. These allegations were based on allegations by Roger Windsor, who was the NUM official who had spoken to Libyan officials. Roy Greenslade, the Mirror's editor at the time, said much later he believes his paper's allegations were false.[28] This was long after an investigation by Seumas Milne described the allegations as wholly without substance and a "classic smear campaign[29].

Thatcher claimed to have seen documentary evidence that suggests that Soviet-leader Mikhail Gorbachev authorised these payments.[30]
Right so she'd seen the "evidence", but was unable top show it to anybody, remember this is a woman who strongly believed in money over principles, because condemning apartheid meant less to her than the money businesses made dealing with south Africa, and don't even get me started on how she had no problem killing people for political gain.

Edit: I realize this has got political, but i wasn't going to let total BS sit there unchallenged.

[soni1770]

i think your saved

British Airways cabin crew strike illegal, court rules




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8418805.stm


:guitar::guitar::guitar::guitar::guitar:

[Xbehave]

British Airways cabin crew strike illegal, court rules
I thought his issue was with the ground crew also striking at Heathrow (but as hes not flying with Emirates/Turkish/Thai airlines so he should be fine).

[benj1]

and don't even get me started on how she had no problem killing people for political gain.


??? what?

[ice60]

LOL have you read the links you gave,


Right so she'd seen the "evidence", but was unable top show it to anybody, remember this is a woman who strongly believed in money over principles, because condemning apartheid meant less to her than the money businesses made dealing with south Africa, and don't even get me started on how she had no problem killing people for political gain.

Edit: I realize this has got political, but i wasn't going to let total BS sit there unchallenged.
no i didn't read the links, i don't need to i'm familiar with it.

to be honest you've written such drivel i can't really reply. it's a kind of rambling messy, all-over-the-place statement. so i expect you're not really looking for a reply.

[LinuxFanBoi]

Sorry this thread is going to be locked soon, So I'm just going to retract my statement, as it would have certainly gotten me a warning had I said what I originally intended.

[NoaHall]

I thought his issue was with the ground crew also striking at Heathrow (but as hes not flying with Emirates/Turkish/Thai airlines so he should be fine).

Yeah, this. As far as we can tell, SAS flights aren't effected.

[ice60]

Well, we the customers should be protected in situations like this. It's a lot of money we're talking about, we can't just throw it away.

I'm not on any of those, however, I am flying with SAS.
i wasn't trying to sound rude, it came out badly.

[NoaHall]

i wasn't trying to sound rude, it came out badly.

I was agreeing with you ;) I think exactly the same about them.

[Xbehave]

??? what?
Changing the rules of engagement so they could sink the Belgrano was done purely for show costing 300+ lives and escalating the war for an election victory.


to be honest you've written such drivel i can't really reply. it's a kind of rambling messy, all-over-the-place statement. so i expect you're not really looking for a reply
You could atleast address the fact that the claim you made

- the miners' strike. the miners' leader wanted a marxist revolution, 1000s fought in the streets day after day for months on end, people were killed and in the end the marxists lost very badly lol.
is total BS. The people that made up the story that they were linked to Marxists admitted as much, yet your repeating the lies.

[ice60]

I was agreeing with you ;) I think exactly the same about them.
:D

have a good time.

[Sef]

Locked. Political talk is not allowed in Ubuntu Forums.