Friday, 13 August 2010


I can understand how the staff at BAA feels; last year they agreed that there would not have a pay rise and this year they have been offered 1% whilst the directors of the company have awarded themselves large pay rises. In the ballot for the proposed strike action only 50% of those eligible to vote bothered whilst 30% voted against. I cannot understand how the union see this as a mandate for a strike which will disrupt most of the main British airports including Heathrow and Stansted and ruin holidays for many, many people. If you assume that the 50% who didn’t vote either were against strike action or couldn’t care less one way or the other and add to that those who voted against it means that 65% of BAA employees are not in favour of striking.
Another continuing dispute which could also cause misery to holiday makers is possible further strike action by BA staff. . And a question: why is it that these matters come to a head at the holiday season. Do the unions really think that they will get public support when people who have worked hard to have an annual holiday find that it is cancelled or ruined due to Trade Unions taking industrial action?
It seems to me that in the 21st century that there should be a better way of resolving disputes rather than strike action. You can hardly blame workers who by enlarge are not well paid getting resentful when they see bosses helping themselves to large chunks of the money they worked hard to produce and being offered a very small increase. In fact, the BAA workers have suffered effectively a wage reduction.

No comments:

Post a Comment