From Unite's website.

Bit different to the £56k and £35K suggested in the Mail's misleading article.

Nice diversionary tactic for some uncomfortable revelations.

So if I find a report of a crooked pilot I can portray your profession in a bad light?

Hang on....there have been a couple of cases in the last few months of pilots being over alcohol limits while on duty. Absolutely disgraceful. You should be ashamed.

So I take it you don't have a problem with this then? No diversionary tactics, it happened, they did it because the passenger in the car wanted to go to work and did not agree with the strikers.

It does and I would report them myself.

As there have been police officers, government officials, truck drivers and countless others. It is disgraceful, but someone with an alcohol problem is no comparison dropping a lump of concrete off of an overpass onto a car intending to deliberately hurt or kill someone. Their actions were no part of their job or profession, they were just thugs.

Sure, but it's diversionary cos it's not relevant to your position on being in a union or not. Or whether the strike action was justified in either case.

So why did you bother posting it then?

To discredit striking miners?

And what does it have to do with my comments about the media telling everyone how well paid miners were when it wasn't true...just like they create the impression that cabin crew are on £56k and £35k when 75% are on far less?

Media articles are rarely written without an agenda, and newspapers like the Daily Mail cater to one section of the public whilst The Sun is aimed at an entirely different kind of readership. Rarely do the two ever meet.

The agenda in the story in post 51 seems to me to be an attempt to get sympathy away from people losing there jobs or yaking a cut in pay and trying to gain sympathy for a company which may be doing the right thing legally and justifiably but not necessarily morally.

If I was running a company that had to either cut job, find a way of cutting cost, a combination of both, or going bust, I'd want to do as much as possible to keep the company going so would choose the third option. BA appear to have done the same, the only visible difference being that instead of a single owner, BA are beholden to a number of owners (shareholders).

Another post from the Unite website, also arranging another strike for a different company's busiest time of year in January over an incident which happened in july.

Here.

If the claims of racism are true then action should have been taken against the offending party, but it appears that an investigation found against the complainant. The strike action seems to be because Union members didn't agree with that decision.

One part of the story that gets me annoyed is that the strike ballot has been translated into Urdu and Punjabi. It's obviously too much effort for their members to read English working in England. I wonder if the Health and Safety signs are translated too.

I used to work in a Tesco in an area high in Polish immigrants, resulting in a large number of Poles working there. Very few spoke English and all of the signs were translated into Polish too and we were all encoraged to learn some Polish. I wonder if we'd get the same consideration working in non-English-speaking countries.

Why do you trust a union that's trying to justify screwing up thousands of people's holidays more than the Civil Aviation Authority, who are the source of those figures?

Yes, that's right. They accepted 900 job losses followed by losing pay (remember they would lose their wages too at a time of year that people usually have extra expenses) just to screw up some holidays.

Are you after a job at the Mail?


The accuracy of the figures has not been denied. The focus of the figures used is what distorts the issue...by reference to the highest paid staff and the average pay as opposed to the pay that MOST of the employees receive.