What's new

BA, ahh to live in a Democracy.

Redbone

Advanced
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
179
Reaction score
0
SeekingAlpha
British Airways Strike That Never Was Will Still Cost It
Tuesday January 30, 7:26 am ET

British Airways Plc may have avoided a strike by cabin crew members hours before it was set to go into effect but it will still likely lose millions of pounds as a result of flight cancellations.bab The airline canceled 1,300 flights and will not be able to reninstate many of them on such short notice. The strike was set into motion when CEO Willie Walsh, in an attempt to trim $100 million in costs a year, attempted to reduce sick leave allowances as well as the number of crew members on flights. The strike was averted only after Walsh agreed to leave current sick leave allowances intact and to raise pay 4.6% in the coming year.
 
SeekingAlpha
British Airways Strike That Never Was Will Still Cost It
Tuesday January 30, 7:26 am ET

British Airways Plc may have avoided a strike by cabin crew members hours before it was set to go into effect but it will still likely lose millions of pounds as a result of flight cancellations.bab The airline canceled 1,300 flights and will not be able to reninstate many of them on such short notice. The strike was set into motion when CEO Willie Walsh, in an attempt to trim $100 million in costs a year, attempted to reduce sick leave allowances as well as the number of crew members on flights. The strike was averted only after Walsh agreed to leave current sick leave allowances intact and to raise pay 4.6% in the coming year.
It seems that the right to strike is not all that much different. It's just that strikes do not work as well for labor unions over here at the moment. I doubt the additional protections granted a company in bankruptcy are all that different over there. I.E., if BA were in BK, I doubt the flight crews could have legally implemented this extortion tactic.
 
Doesn't bankruptcy in the UK generally mean you go out of business? There really is no Chapter 11 equivalent in much of the world.
 
Doesn't bankruptcy in the UK generally mean you go out of business? There really is no Chapter 11 equivalent in much of the world.


It worked.

"if BA were in BK, I doubt the flight crews could have legally implemented this extortion tactic."

Is this in the same league as extortion by CEOs whom reap tens of millions in the form of "paid for failure" clause. CEO pay at 400 times a companies employee's is beyond extortion, it is nothing less than disgusting theft.

The ability to force a company to treat it's employees decent is what brought America out of the sweat shops and Slave days of the 18th century.
 
It worked.

"if BA were in BK, I doubt the flight crews could have legally implemented this extortion tactic."

Is this in the same league as extortion by CEOs whom reap tens of millions in the form of "paid for failure" clause. CEO pay at 400 times a companies employee's is beyond extortion, it is nothing less than disgusting theft.

The ability to force a company to treat it's employees decent is what brought America out of the sweat shops and Slave days of the 18th century.
CEO's get paid what the corporate boards are willing to pay for their services. No CEO can threaten to shut down a company by not showing up for work if he doesn't get paid what he/she wants. If a CEO gets paid 400 times the salary of someone else, then to the shareholders of the company, the CEO's services must be worth 400 times more. If the CEO doesn't like his compensation, the CEO can prove to the board that he's worth it, or he can leave and go where his services will be compensated better. The CEO doesn't try to figure out a way to sabotoge the company as part of his negotiations, thereby he/she does not use extortion like labor unions do.
 
CEO's get paid what the corporate boards are willing to pay for their services. No CEO can threaten to shut down a company by not showing up for work if he doesn't get paid what he/she wants. If a CEO gets paid 400 times the salary of someone else, then to the shareholders of the company, the Ceo services must be worth 400 times more. If the CEO doesn't like his compensation, the CEO can prove to the board that he's worth it, or he can leave and go where his services will be compensated better. The CEO doesn't try to figure out a way to sabotage the company as part of his negotiations, thereby he/she does not use extortion like labor unions do.

BODs are stacked by flunkies. Corporate governances make it almost impossible for the shareholders to remove a CEO. When the norm is to reward CEOs for failure with front in clauses, they are beholden to no one. They will walk away rich even for failure.

The power to dissolve the company via a strike reminds the shareholders who built the company, and who keeps the company operating. The company is non existent without the employee. Employees don't have the opportunity to prove to the BOD that they are worth a certain salary. America was built on greed. If the BOD, CEO, and shareholders can force the employees to work for less (it means more for their pockets) they ALWAYS will.

Greed is what drives the 400 times employee pay formula. Germany's standard has worked just fine and produced the 3rd largest economy in the world. CEO pay is tied to employee pay, and the performance of the company.

All one has to do is look at American factories prior to Unions, and look at America after.

Unions created the American middle class, which in turn created the most powerful nation on earth. Without the American middle class, this nation will be toast. Without Unions the middle class will be toast.
 
BODs are stacked by flunkies. Corporate governances make it almost impossible for the shareholders to remove a CEO. When the norm is to reward CEOs for failure with front in clauses, they are beholden to no one. They will walk away rich even for failure.

The power to dissolve the company via a strike reminds the shareholders who built the company, and who keeps the company operating. The company is non existent without the employee. Employees don't have the opportunity to prove to the BOD that they are worth a certain salary. America was built on greed. If the BOD, CEO, and shareholders can force the employees to work for less (it means more for their pockets) they ALWAYS will.

Greed is what drives the 400 times employee pay formula. Germany's standard has worked just fine and produced the 3rd largest economy in the world. CEO pay is tied to employee pay, and the performance of the company.

All one has to do is look at American factories prior to Unions, and look at America after.

Unions created the American middle class, which in turn created the most powerful nation on earth. Without the American middle class, this nation will be toast. Without Unions the middle class will be toast.
Wow, that's a lot of socialist mumbo jumbo lumped into one post. You might want to pick up an ecomonics book at some point in your life. A great one is 'Basic Economics' by Thomas Sowell.

First, the BOD represents the interest of the shareholders, so they speak and act on their behalf. As far as boards being stacked by flunkies, you'll have to elaborate. Give me some examples of boards made up of flunkies, and explain why the individuals on those boards are flunkies in your eyes. In almost all circumstances, they are very successful and ethical people.

Second, the employees have just as much chance to prove their merit as the CEO, it's just through different channels. The employee needs to impress their manager, who is responsible for maintaining a quality product by the VP, who reports to the CEO, who ultimately is judged by the board.

Third, greed is a meaningless word when used in terms of economics. Is it "greedy" that you require $30/hr to compensate for your skills even though you don't have any children, while a less skilled person with 5 kids can only get paid $20/hr for his skills? If you had the skills to be able to make $1M per year, would you choose not to so as to not seem "greedy". Believe it or not, there's not some lottery where CEO's get drawn out of a hat and get paid millions to just look pretty. Those that achieve that level of success have worked hard and are extremely smart and talented people that rose to the top. I guess it's easy to assume they don't earn their salary, but the free market (the combined opinion of millions of competing interests) knows a lot more than one person's opinion.

Fourth, prior to unions, there were factories in America. Enough said.

Lastly, the middle class is stronger now than it has ever been, and unions have been declining for years, so the current strength of the middle class has little to do with unions. The unbridled independent spirit to create and prosper by the individual is what made America the strongest nation on earth, not unions. Unions sucked from the teet of that prosperity for the previous couple generations, and continue to do so today in the governement sector.
 
Wow, that's a lot of socialist mumbo jumbo lumped into one post. You might want to pick up an ecomonics book at some point in your life. A great one is 'Basic Economics' by Thomas Sowell.

First, the BOD represents the interest of the shareholders, so they speak and act on their behalf. As far as boards being stacked by flunkies, you'll have to elaborate. Give me some examples of boards made up of flunkies, and explain why the individuals on those boards are flunkies in your eyes. In almost all circumstances, they are very successful and ethical people.

Second, the employees have just as much chance to prove their merit as the CEO, it's just through different channels. The employee needs to impress their manager, who is responsible for maintaining a quality product by the VP, who reports to the CEO, who ultimately is judged by the board.

Third, greed is a meaningless word when used in terms of economics. Is it "greedy" that you require $30/hr to compensate for your skills even though you don't have any children, while a less skilled person with 5 kids can only get paid $20/hr for his skills? If you had the skills to be able to make $1M per year, would you choose not to so as to not seem "greedy". Believe it or not, there's not some lottery where CEO's get drawn out of a hat and get paid millions to just look pretty. Those that achieve that level of success have worked hard and are extremely smart and talented people that rose to the top. I guess it's easy to assume they don't earn their salary, but the free market (the combined opinion of millions of competing interests) knows a lot more than one person's opinion.

Fourth, prior to unions, there were factories in America. Enough said.

Lastly, the middle class is stronger now than it has ever been, and unions have been declining for years, so the current strength of the middle class has little to do with unions. The unbridled independent spirit to create and prosper by the individual is what made America the strongest nation on earth, not unions. Unions sucked from the teet of that prosperity for the previous couple generations, and continue to do so today in the governement sector.

What way do you propose would be a "fair and equitable" way of paying employees (who's performance the company's very existence depends)?

Leave it to a CEO like "Chainsaw Al", remember him. His answer to profits (as has been for most American CEO's), cut employee pay and benefits so we can show a profit. (he ended up in jail, and ridiculed)

Greed is when you have CEOs whom feel they are worth $10.00 just because the other airline CEOs are making that, even tho HIS company has faltered, and lost money. Greed is when you reward an individual after his company goes bankrupt under his watch. Greed is when CEOs think they can make a company run regardless of it's employee's treament as long as he gets his millions. All of these examples are indicative of failed companies with "ethical board members"(who've clearly FAILED in their independent fiduciary duty)

You are correct, there were factories, SLAVE labor camps where people were locked inside and paid poverty wages.

I don't remember Germany or Japan being classified as socialist. Your way of thinking appears to be "reward the CEO for the labor of the employees, and screw the fairness of the employees. Few CEOs would make a penny if their pay was tied to performance of product and employee. Without a good employee...you will eventually not need a CEO, cause there will be no company.

Why is it that the most successful nations on earth, U.S., Germany, Japan, England, France, Italy, all prospered and dominated the world as nations with UNIONIZED work forces.

Unions have been declining because of the very behavior that you see with the NWA Flight Attendants, anti-Union, government interference during negotiations. This attack started with Reagan and the air traffic controllers and has continued unabated.

But...dear friend, the Unions will prevail. In fact membership is increasing for the first time in decades. :up:

So, show us the light and tell us your formula.
 
I.E., if BA were in BK, I doubt the flight crews could have legally implemented this extortion tactic.

Oh, so when a corporation in BK sticks it to employees its " sorry, its legal". However, when outside BK the shoe is on the other foot where the union has the advantage, and now it becomes an "extortion tactic".

Sorry Finman, "Its legal"

🙄 🙄 🙄
 
Lastly, the middle class is stronger now than it has ever been, ....

Oh thats a good one. Thanks for the laugh. 🙄


http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan07/Petras13.htm

The paradox is that some of the most wealthy and powerful beneficiaries of the ascendancy of finance capital are precisely the same class of people who are financing their own self-destruction. While cheap finance fueling multi-billion dollar mergers, acquisitions, commissions and executive payoffs, heightened militarism operates on a budget plagued by tax reductions, exemptions and evasions for the financial ruling class and ever greater squeezing of the overburdened wage and salary classes.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/jan2007/dems-j25.shtml

“Regarding the economic imbalance in our country, I am reminded of the situation President Theodore Roosevelt faced in the early days of the 20th century. America was then, as now, drifting apart along class lines. The so-called robber barons were unapologetically raking in a huge percentage of the national wealth. The dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt.â€￾

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/...INION/701280323

During the past 25 years, America has rapidly moved away from a democratic, egalitarian, middle-class nation toward oligarchy — the concentration of governing power in the hands of a tiny, superwealthy elite. The top 1 percent of the population now has more wealth than the bottom 90 percent, and the disparity will only continue to grow.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/200...ddle_class.html

Calculations based on newly released data sadly confirm that the financial security of middle class families further deteriorated in 2005.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/update/200...nders_oped.html

The president still believes that the economy is booming as a result of his tax breaks. But the president fails to note that since he has been in office, 5.4 million middle class Americans have slipped into poverty, 6.8 million Americans have lost their health insurance, median income for working-age families has declined for five consecutive years, and 3 million manufacturing workers have lost their jobs. At the same time, the costs of education, prescription drugs, energy, and housing have risen dramatically.
 
😱 Look for no reply from finman on this one. He likes to spout half truths an unsupported theory, and then make acquisition of an idea he disagrees with. With no original ideas only those from a crack head he listens to on the radio that will debate no one. Twist facts and just tell lies, all he really does.
 


George Bush sound bite: "Some may call you the Elite, but I call you my base....he then snorts and snickers"

Fineman: "Second, the employees have just as much chance to prove their merit as the CEO, it's just through different channels. The employee needs to impress their manager, who is responsible for maintaining a quality product by the VP, who reports to the CEO, who ultimately is judged by the board."

And the incentive to reward the employees lies where? Do a good job and you can KEEP your job? Do a good job and it will enrich me, therefore I have no incentive to increase your pay, you can't strike collectively(according to Fineman) if you do you will destroy the company and it will be YOUR fault.(EXTORTION according to Fineman)

Charley, you are talking to the wrong one about economics. Your infantile analogy is so ridiculously simplistic it is beneath a 4th grader. I just hope to Jesus that you are not in charge of some part of someone's company.
 
Back
Top