What a load of bollocks.

My comment about anti-discrimination laws was actually in response to which suggested an employer could choose who they wanted to employ perhaps based on sex, race etc.

I'm sure The Aviator didn't mean it literally, hence my wink in the post.

It never actually occurred to me, but obviously was in your mind. Why should an employer not choose who they hire and don't hire. If someone is unsuitable for whatever reason, why should an employer be expected to hire them. I would close my business before being told by anyone who I should hire and how much to pay.

Because the law says they can't.

Unsuitable according to whom? Are you saying all employers are free not to employ black people? Women?

The law does not say an employer cannot hire who they like, it says they cannot discriminate by certain things, such as race gender, disability or age. You also still have to prove discrimination as well. It depends on the requirements of the job. I will choose who I hire and don't hire, the most suitable person for the job. You're the only one saying by color or gender.

If a job requires heavy lifting, a person with a back injury is not suitable. If a job requires driving and the applicant does not a have a license. The job requires working in a secure area and the person cannot pass a criminal record check.

Immigration only chooses suitable individuals, some don't get in. Not everyone is suitable for every job and an employer is free to and does decide who they should and will hire.

The problem here is that the reactionary view of 'why don't they just leave' is simplistic. They have a choice to leave yes - but they also have a choice to strike - and in the legal framework they operate in that option is open to them.

I don't blame the workers for using whatever little bargaining power they have; especially given that employers are usually the main beneficiaries of state legislation. Even so, this doesn't stop business owners acting like they are ayn randian supermen powering the economy.

This isn't the 70s anymore; Joe Average has little sympathy for unionised workers who earn more than he does for flying around the world, when he's had to take a pay cut so his employer doesn't ship his job to China. And no sympathy when said workers deliberately destroy the holiday plans that he's been saving for all year.

There certainly are situations where a strike makes sense and people will support strikers in those situations; but right now the only thing a strike will achieve is to ensure that many of those who do strike won't have a job in six months, either because they'll drive the company into bankruptcy or because they'll be the first ones laid off as losses due to the strike lead to more redundancies to save money.

It never is. I cant believe people who sit at home thinking everyone in a union cant wait to go on strike. My sister in law works for BA and has been treated shamefully over the last few years. She's currently having to reapply for her job for the 3rd time having successfully got it twice. You can imagine what it does for the office politics when they'll constantly in competition with each other. My heart goes out for those who have holidays booked, its awful for them being stuck in the middle.

Many people have had to say goodbye to bonus packages, pay cuts or reduced hours of working because these measures were required to keep the company going.
By the news reports BA is loosing money at a rapid rate, so they are putting measures in place to try to reduce this and unfortunately this means cutting back.
My company had this a few years back and these measures helped keep it afloat. We said goodbye to all of these are were prepared to be contracted out to other companies because we knew the bigger picture was closing down.
So no sympathy at all, not just because I am due to fly out during the strike!

That's exactly what I said.

Don't really care that it's not the 70's anymore. Don't really care about the strike. It may well be an ill advised PR nightmare for the union, but I don't deny them the right to take this action if it's legal, even if you or others don't like it.

It was? I believe you said that employers cannot choose who they hire, they can.

Except in Canada where unionised workforces are still living the 1970's dream. Brothers.

Where's Maggie when we need her

I don't particularly care, because I haven't flown on BA in years. But if I hadn't known a few BA employees in the past I'd be amazed to see them acting like turkeys knocking on peoples' doors on Christmas day to ask if they could come to dinner.

The people I do feel sorry for are the other BA staff who've accepted changes to help the company return to profitability, and are now having to face the prospect of being laid off next year because some people are determined to make a bad situation much worse.