The nerve of some people

[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?

[Abu]

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?