[xit2050]

Struggling BA asks 40,000 staff to work for nothing in desperate fight for survival | Mail Online

And in contrast: Willie Walsh pockets pay rise despite record BA losses | Business | guardian.co.uk

Hello, Mr Walsh? How do you expect people that are struggling to make it to the end of each month to have no income at all for a month?

[Chox1988]

my face, albeit less blue>

[Isobutane]

The options are between unpaid leave or unpaid work? Err, I wonder which one they'll choose?

It's amazing how delusional prats like him can actually get into a position of power, but sadly it's quite common .

[Achy]

If the company is in THAT much trouble, and I worked there, I'd be happy to take some unpaid leave...

It's either that or the company could go down the pan and I could find myself out of work anyway !

[eric pisch]

is this any difference to honda asking its staff to go on half pay for 4 months and not to work?

if it saves the company and stops redundancies its surely a good thing

[ROBIN50N]

i think its the fact that they are asking the staff to do that, yet pocketing big pay rises

[nheather]

half pay for 4 months and not to work

Half pay and not working - that's quite different - I'd take that


What BA are offering is no pay and work or not work.

And the trouble with these sort of options - it may seem like a no-brainer to go for the (no pay, not work) option but given the state of the company and what is likely to happen in the future you have to wonder what the consequences of choosing not work over work.

You can't help feeling that those that choose to work for nothing will be looked on more favourably in the future.

And once you start thinking like that, you are almost being demanded to work for nothing.

Cheers,

Nigel

[eric pisch]

Originally Posted by nheather

Half pay and not working - that's quite different - I'd take that


What BA are offering is no pay and work or not work.

And the trouble with these sort of options - it may seem like a no-brainer to go for the (no pay, not work) option but given the state of the company and what is likely to happen in the future you have to wonder what the consequences of choosing not work over work.

You can't help feeling that those that choose to work for nothing will be looked on more favourably in the future.

And once you start thinking like that, you are almost being demanded to work for nothing.

Cheers,

Nigel

i think the objection was thou that any reduction in pay would mean an inability to pay bills etc, a substantially reduced pay over such along period would defiantly affect the ability to pay bills.

and an airline is not like a manufacturing industry they can not build up a stock of flights to use whilst everyone is on half paid holiday, because of the nature of the industry any equivalent cash saving schemes are going to have to be quicker and harder, but the long term effect would be the same for the company and the staff.

[krish]

why couldn't they be a bit more creative rather than the tight arses they always are
- bonds or shares in lieu of pay ... basically some form of IOU?

would that be possible?

[xit2050]

Originally Posted by Achy

If the company is in THAT much trouble, and I worked there, I'd be happy to take some unpaid leave...

It's either that or the company could go down the pan and I could find myself out of work anyway !

At the end of the line, you are right... but, all those years that these companies made fortunes they never did anything for their personnel, now that they are in trouble, it's the employees (or the tax-payer in the case of the banks) that have to pay the price.

[nheather]

i think the objection was thou that any reduction in pay would mean an inability to pay bills etc

I agree. Although the BBC report does say that the reduction will be spread over 6 months. In other works they won't simply get a 100% reduction in July but would get a 17% reduction for 6 months.

Still amounts to the same but in some cases more manageable.

You could argue that not doing it will result in a long-term inability to pay bill though.

Sad times and you have to blame the bosses of BA because from what I've read, Vigin Atlantic are doing very well - so you can't just blame the economy, it's company attitude, culture and business skills.

Cheers,

Nigel

[PoochJD]

Hi,

Saw this on the news this morning, and I wouldn't be too chuffed with any company asking me (nigh begging) to work for them for nothing, and yet expecting me to somehow pay my bills, rent, and survive on zero income!

It's shocking what these companies think they can do, and that their employees are expected to just bend over backwards and go "Of course we'll work for free! Would you like us to all stick metal poles up our backsides too, whilst we're at it?!"

I've also just found this piece of news, on an Australian site. A thousand staff to be sacked, via dismissal?!

I wonder what will happen if the company did go tits-up, for customers who had booked flights for later in the year, or next year perhaps?


Pooch

[arthurdentpc]

I wonder what the reaction would be of an electric company if they were asked to supply the same electricity, but have 17% of their bills unpaid .....

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by PoochJD

Hi,

Saw this on the news this morning, and I wouldn't be too chuffed with any company asking me (nigh begging) to work for them for nothing, and yet expecting me to somehow pay my bills, rent, and survive on zero income!

That would be the equivalent of a month pay spread over months.
If you look at the alternative of not trying to help your employer out, you'd still have to survive on zero income but for possibly much longer than a month after they have to fire staff.

Sometimes employees have to stop seeing the employer like the enemy who "exploits" them and see that helping the company is helping yourself too.

Saying that I wouldn't take kindly to any higher up people getting huge pay rises.
If I was leader of a union I would say "Ok, we'll do the work one month for free this year but we want it to apply to everyone in the company from top to bottom, and no bonus or anything to get around it".

[xit2050]

Originally Posted by Jenn

If you look at the alternative of not trying to help your employer out, you'd still have to survive on zero income but for possibly much longer than a month after they have to fire staff.

Very weak argument, IMHO.

What about this: we agree to work 1 month for free this year, but next year when you are make huge profits again, you pay us 13 months for 12 months of work.
Do you think Mr Walsh would agree to that?

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by xit2050

Very weak argument, IMHO.

What about this: we agree to work 1 month for free this year, but next year when you are make huge profits again, you pay us 13 months for 12 months of work.
Do you think Mr Walsh would agree to that?

How is it weak? What do you think a business would do: just say ok we'll pay all of you and keep you on despite the fact we are losing money?
It's either all staff takes pay cut or we'll have to fire a portion of them.

But your suggestion is very fair too. As for whether they would agree to it or not, I think a BA strike threat would sort it quickly since it's more than reasonable.

[xit2050]

Originally Posted by Jenn

It's either all staff takes pay cut or we'll have to fire a portion of them.

If I understand correctly, they will be firing thousands, even if everybody takes a pay cut.

Originally Posted by Jenn

As for whether they would agree to it or not

They won't.
Modern companies don't give a damn about their personnel, all that counts are the shareholders and the benefit margin... People should start to realise that.

[JUS]

First of all...oh god...I've got two flights planned with BA in the next 6 weeks.

How is unpaid leave going to help? I can see how unpaid work will.

[unique]

Originally Posted by JUS

First of all...oh god...I've got two flights planned with BA in the next 6 weeks.

How is unpaid leave going to help? I can see how unpaid work will.

unpaid leave means a reduction in the wage bill which means a reduction in costs, which means a reduction in losses, which means a reduction in the likelyhood of job losses and a reduction in the likelyhood of the company going insolvent which would mean the loss of thousands of jobs not only of staff directly employed by BA, but those companies that supply goods and services to BA

just remember when woolworths ceased trading, and then zavvi went shortly after that, along with a number of other smaller companies who's main business came from woolworths


effectively what BA are doing are asking staff to help reduce costs voluntarily to avoid having to make compulsory redundancies by being forced to cut costs. cutting the wage bill is one of the few ways costs can be effectively and quickly reduced

obviously not everyone will take up the offer, but if they can get some staff to take them up and save enough it might help save jobs. you have to think past your own situation and consider other people who may want to take time off to travel or look after kids or something else, and either don't have enough paid annual leave to do so, or they don't want to use up the holiday entitlement at this time. not everyone is in the situation where they need every penny of income every month, some have savings, so could take a month of unpaid leave and visit australia for example, probably with a staff discounted ticket. others may have a new arrival in the family and want some time off to help at home. some managers may be paid adequately enough and feel pressured to do a months unpaid work to save face. some air hostesses or pilots may enjoy the job enough to do it for free as long as they can pay the bills

[xit2050]

Originally Posted by unique

unpaid leave means a reduction in the wage bill which means a reduction in costs, which means a reduction in losses, which means a reduction in the likelyhood of job losses and a reduction in the likelyhood of the company going insolvent which would mean the loss of thousands of jobs not only of staff directly employed by BA, but those companies that supply goods and services to BA

just remember when woolworths ceased trading, and then zavvi went shortly after that, along with a number of other smaller companies who's main business came from woolworths


effectively what BA are doing are asking staff to help reduce costs voluntarily to avoid having to make compulsory redundancies by being forced to cut costs. cutting the wage bill is one of the few ways costs can be effectively and quickly reduced

obviously not everyone will take up the offer, but if they can get some staff to take them up and save enough it might help save jobs. you have to think past your own situation and consider other people who may want to take time off to travel or look after kids or something else, and either don't have enough paid annual leave to do so, or they don't want to use up the holiday entitlement at this time. not everyone is in the situation where they need every penny of income every month, some have savings, so could take a month of unpaid leave and visit australia for example, probably with a staff discounted ticket. others may have a new arrival in the family and want some time off to help at home. some managers may be paid adequately enough and feel pressured to do a months unpaid work to save face. some air hostesses or pilots may enjoy the job enough to do it for free as long as they can pay the bills

And again I say: why does all the burden have to be on the employees' shoulders?
What about suggesting to the shareholders to forfeit their dividend for this and next year? What about asking management to refuse any bonus they are 'entitled' to for this year?

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by xit2050

If I understand correctly, they will be firing thousands, even if everybody takes a pay cut.

I don't know but maybe this would allow them not to fire even more??

Originally Posted by xit2050

They won't.
Modern companies don't give a damn about their personnel, all that counts are the shareholders and the benefit margin... People should start to realise that.

I think you're wrong.

Yes they care first about benefit and shareholders, that's what companies are for. The first duty a director has is to act in the company's best interest and for the benefit of the shareholders. What good is a company that shuts down because it was overly generous to the staff?

However you'll find that even directors or managers who are right idiots can recognise that without staff they're not going to go very far.
If staff strikes, you lose money, in BA's case, huge amounts of money.
If all they're asking is their missing month wage back in a future year, it's not really difficult.

[Jenn]

Originally Posted by xit2050

And again I say: why does all the burden have to be on the employees' shoulders?
What about suggesting to the shareholders to forfeit their dividend for this and next year? What about asking management to refuse any bonus they are 'entitled' to for this year?

You'll find that dividends can only be paid on profits so there aren't any if the company makes a loss.

[eric pisch]

Originally Posted by xit2050

And again I say: why does all the burden have to be on the employees' shoulders?
What about suggesting to the shareholders to forfeit their dividend for this and next year? What about asking management to refuse any bonus they are 'entitled' to for this year?

i would assume after posting a £400 mill loose that the share holders will be getting nothing, if the company goes skint they also loose everything they have invested

interestingly BAs price is pretty static at the moment so the markets dont seam to bothered

u are right of course that the managers should not take bonus's and also not get paid for one month

[unique]

Originally Posted by xit2050

And again I say: why does all the burden have to be on the employees' shoulders?
What about suggesting to the shareholders to forfeit their dividend for this and next year? What about asking management to refuse any bonus they are 'entitled' to for this year?

there is no burden on the staff. they don't have to do anything if they don't want to, but it's the staff who will lose jobs if the company goes bust. i imagine they will be looking at all areas to reduce costs, and not just this. you really don't know everything they are looking at. a lot of it is probably confidential for a number of reasons

i have no idea if management will be due bonuses or not, usually these are paid based on performance, so if the company is doing so badly then they probably won't get it. you have no idea what they have asked management to do, you only know about this as it's been leaked to the press. management will probably have a tighter control on issues relating to their own pay, but i would imagine that they would need more of a reducting in wages than simply managements pay, which is why all staff have been asked. not all managers would be able to work for a month without pay. i see people paid considerable sums of money who complain about being skint, as it seems some people will max out monthly expenditure regardless of how much they are paid. the more they are paid, the bigger the mortgage, and the more trouble they get in when things get tight

regarding shareholders, i imagine if they don't make any money they won't get a payout, shares aren't something i know too much about in that respect

[krish]

BA OFFERS FREE ADVENTURE HOLIDAYS AT AIRPORTS - The Daily Mash

[xit2050]

Originally Posted by krish

BA OFFERS FREE ADVENTURE HOLIDAYS AT AIRPORTS - The Daily Mash

[MikeTV]

Just to clarify a few points - a shareholder has the potential to lose their entire investment if a company goes under, irrespective of whether they normally receive dividends or not.

Many companies don't even pay dividends to shareholders (but instead they invest any "surplus money"/profit in the company itself - and the shareholder benefits by the company's own growth).

A company that is continually making losses will ultimately fold. It isn't just the shareholders that will lose, but also all the company's employees, customers and suppliers. The shareholders will lose by the stock price going down. The employees will be let go.

Requiring staff to take unpaid leave may be a good strategy if you want to downsize your operations (like Honda, due to slow demand). But BA has an airline to run (and is not downsizing) and so it still requires staff to operate it.

They are effectively asking staff to donate their labour for free. This is different from unpaid leave, which wouldn't necesssarily help BA in this case. If employees agree, BA will reduce it's costs and therefore it will increase its chances of making profit (or at least reduce it's loss).

[indianwells]

I recently booked five flights with BA for the end of the year amounting to several thousand pounds!
I did book by credit card though so i'm guessing, actually no, i'm praying i'll be covered?

[gavan]

Originally Posted by xit2050

And again I say: why does all the burden have to be on the employees' shoulders?
What about suggesting to the shareholders to forfeit their dividend for this and next year? What about asking management to refuse any bonus they are 'entitled' to for this year?

Or they could issue new shares and give them to workers to compensate them for their unpaid work. It would dilute the value of existing shareholders stock but they benefited when the airline was making profits so it's fair they should share the suffering when they aren't.

[krish]

Originally Posted by gavan

Or they could issue new shares and give them to workers to compensate them for their unpaid work. It would dilute the value of existing shareholders stock but they benefited when the airline was making profits so it's fair they should share the suffering when they aren't.

I mentioned that earlier ... basically some kind of IOU/benefit whether it be shares, bonds, supermarket vouchers, etc, to show at least some shred of respect to their staff