Strikers

Originally posted by rwingett
Why do you hate ordinary workers so much?

Hate? You seem to have a problem.

Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
Hate? You seem to have a problem.

You want to deny them their right collective bargaining and their right to strike. You endorse firing them en masse for not towing the company line. Sounds like you hate workers to me.

Originally posted by rwingett
You want to deny them their right collective bargaining and their right to strike. You endorse firing them en masse for not towing the company line. Sounds like you hate workers to me.

That is your problem not mine. I 'hate' nobody in this dispute which is concerned with an endeavour to save a loss-making enterprise from bankruptcy and collapse.

Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
That is your problem not mine. I 'hate' nobody in this dispute which is concerned with an endeavour to save a loss-making enterprise from bankruptcy and collapse.

Your desire to treat workers as virtual slaves is indistinguishable from hatred.

Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
Ronald Reagan called the bluff of the aircraft traffic controllers in the USA who went 'on strke' in the 80s, and replaced them overnight, despite the fact that they were far more skilled,and therefore more difficult to replace, than the waiters and waitresses now trying to hold BA to ransome.

I must admit that I don't know much about the effects of this strike, but this is from wikipedia. "The FAA had initially claimed that staffing levels would be restored within two years; however, it would take closer to ten years before the overall staffing levels returned to normal", so 'replaced overnight' seems like a very simple way of putting it.

Originally posted by Barts
I must admit that I don't know much about the effects of this strike, but this is from wikipedia. "The FAA had initially claimed that staffing levels would be restored within two years; however, it would take closer to ten years before the overall staffing levels returned to normal", so 'replaced overnight' seems like a very simple way of putting it.

The fact remains that Reagan's action kept the airfields running and taught a salutary lesson to others contemplating strike action.

Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
Why do we put up with 'strikers' who threaten vital public services. All that is needed is to call their bluff and sack them.

Why do we put up with employers who refuse to pay their employees the amount necessary to keep them from striking AKA what the supply/demand curve requires, threatening vital public services?

All that is needed is to call their bluff and sack them.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Well, quitting is a way to deny labor without striking. Strikes violate contracts and stuff sometimes don't they?

Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
Ronald Reagan called the bluff of the aircraft traffic controllers in the USA who went 'on strke' in the 80s, and replaced them overnight, despite the fact that they were far more skilled,and therefore more difficult to replace, than the waiters and waitresses now trying to hold BA to ransome.

Reagan was a statist?

Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
The fact remains that Reagan's action kept the airfields running and taught a salutary lesson to others contemplating strike action.

Are you aware that people went to prison for not working? It was more than firing them.

http://avstop.com/news/strike1.html

Air traffic was reduced and salaries were raised as a result of that strike.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Why do we put up with employers who refuse to pay their employees the amount necessary to keep them from striking AKA what the supply/demand curve requires, threatening vital public services?

All that is needed is to call their bluff and sack them.

BA has not proposed cutting the already generous pay scales enjoyed by cabin staff but merely wants them to change their work practices so as to save money and thereby avoid further crippling losses which threaten to close the airline down.

Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
BA has not proposed cutting the already generous pay scales enjoyed by cabin staff but merely wants them to change their work practices so as to save money and thereby avoid further crippling losses which threaten to close the airline down.

To claim that B.A.'s financial problems are caused by the pay scales of the cabin staff is interesting. B.A. has been poorly managed for a generation. This breakdown in industrial relations probably will serve to distract attention from that, the real problem. Your insinuation that cabin staff want, or are ambivalent about, their airline closing down very trite and tabloid, if you know what I mean.

Originally posted by FMF
To claim that B.A.'s financial problems are caused by the pay scales of the cabin staff is interesting. B.A. has been poorly managed for a generation. This breakdown in industrial relations probably will serve to distract attention from that, the real problem. Your insinuation that cabin staff want, or are ambivalent about, their airline closing down very trite and tabloid, if you know what I mean.

At the other end of the scale is France where the right to strike is enshrined in the Constitution. The net effect of that is that striking is so part of the culture that strikes go on all the time no matter what the conditions -- there are no conditions so good that one cannot ask for more.

The net effect is that businesses have an incredibly hard time changing anything to stay efficient and productive -- which is one of the reasons for the decades-long decline of the French economy relative to others. Which then comes back to bite workers in the butt with lower relative salries.

Nice historical architecture, though. And good bread.

Originally posted by spruce112358
Nice historical architecture, though. And good bread.

And, on average, a better quality of life than Americans, longer holidays, and higher productivity.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Reagan was a statist?

So what? We were discussing how to deal effectively with strikers who threaten to disrupt public services.