# Aer Lingus Strike



## Sunny (15 Aug 2007)

Can someone explain why the pilots in Aer Lingus as one of the company's largest shareholders would want to cause the company massive financial and reputational damage by going on strike?? Is it not a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face??


----------



## Purple (15 Aug 2007)

They don't want to loose their ability to hold the company to ransom whenever they want.
By the way, this is the no different than if Intel workers in Ireland went on strike so that those in an Intel plant in India (or wherever) got the same pay and conditions.


----------



## sinbadsailor (15 Aug 2007)

They like every other heavily unionised group have no mind of their own and are just following a hymsheet like sheep.

Also, too much time on their hands, as it's not as if they are overworked now is it.


----------



## MrMan (15 Aug 2007)

> Also, too much time on their hands, as it's not as if they are overworked now is it.



Don't think I'd fancy having the lives of hundreds/thousands of people in my hands every week. For all of the physical hours they put in I don't think the average passenger would want pilots doing 40 hour weeks with the option of over time


----------



## mf1 (15 Aug 2007)

Is it not one of the last opportunities for Unions to try and have a say in the way in which the company they work for is run? I think they are wrong - I don't think they should be allowed to hold the company to ransom like this - it is a form of blackmail.   

"By the way, this is no different than if Intel workers in Ireland went on strike so that those in an Intel plant in India (or wherever) got the same pay and conditions."

Is it not a bit different though insofaras its a Irish Company rather than a global entity?  

Also, I don't think pilots are overworked necessarily but I would not envy a long haul pilots lifestyle - it must be nigh impossible to sustain a relationship let alone a marriage with kids if you're doing long distance stuff.  

mf


----------



## z108 (15 Aug 2007)

Purple said:


> They don't want to loose their ability to hold the company to ransom whenever they want.
> By the way, this is the no different than if Intel workers in Ireland went on strike so that those in an Intel plant in India (or wherever) got the same pay and conditions.



I completely agree with this !


----------



## Purple (15 Aug 2007)

mf1 said:


> Is it not a bit different though insofaras its a Irish Company rather than a global entity?


It's an Irish company trying to become an international company. Its own employees are trying to thwart its efforts even though it will have no impact on their own pay and conditions.
There are many Irish companies that have employees in other countries. In some cases it is to access markets and in others it is to access cheap labour. I have never heard of a company that pays the same rates in every country. From a business or ethical perspective there is no logical reason to do so.


----------



## Sunny (15 Aug 2007)

The thing I find amazing is that the pilots pension fund spent millions of euro on stopping Ryanair and now hold a significant share of the company. And now they decide that they have to put their own members pensions at risk for a reason that most people struggle to understand. If their actions drive the company to the wall, whats the bets that they are expecting the largest shareholder i.e. the State to bail out the pension fund.


----------



## Purple (15 Aug 2007)

Sunny said:


> The thing I find amazing is that the pilots pension fund spent millions of euro on stopping Ryanair and now hold a significant share of the company. And now they decide that they have to put their own members pensions at risk for a reason that most people struggle to understand. If their actions drive the company to the wall, whats the bets that they are expecting the largest shareholder i.e. the State to bail out the pension fund.


 Spot on.


----------



## ashambles (15 Aug 2007)

They probably don't quite understand what being being a shareholder or employee of a public company is all about just yet. They haven't been through a rough patch - this time without a government able to bail them out, the 25% government shareholding doesn't mean as much as they might think.

It's possible the pension fund they invested in Aer Lingus is a supplemental pension, they have their standard Aer Lingus pension and a second side pension. They're certainly paid well enough to do this.

In fairness if they do go out on strike at least it's not the work to rule or work disrupting union meeting nonsense we see so often where they really believe in the cause - but not quite enough to take the slightest hit in the pocket. A smidgen of respect if this is the case.


----------



## Bluebells (16 Aug 2007)

The pilots strike, while a nusiance, has come about for the same reason as most strikes. 
It was the greed of employers, not workers, that brought about Trade Unions. They were formed to give rights, proper wages and a quality of life to the employees of abusive and avaricious employers, whose only motivation was not just profit, but _maximum _profit. 

While the modern employee is protected to a degree by legislation, the modern employer is still after maximum profit. The way to achieve this is high productivity and  low wages. The argument is, that this is business, and that unionised workers should stop trying to limit the ability of the employer to make as much money as possible. What this means is that an employer is allowed to make as much money as he can, but an employee    is considered lazy and greedy if he wants to earn as much money as _he _ can.

Why shouldn't a worker have a nice job with conditions?  Why shouldn't they have plenty of time off to spend with their families?  What is wrong with having perks?  Why should the never ending quest for profit and financial gain operate at the expense of the worker? Are they not entitled to enjoy their working lives? Why shouldn't a worker go on strike to protect a good job with good conditions? Why should once, well paid jobs, become  less well paid jobs?  
I know all the arguments about markets, and shareholders and profit margins. I know that without the employer we would all be destitute and we should be glad to have an income at all. I know that a company has to be profitable to pay it's workers. But how did we become conditioned into thinking that profit is the only thing that matters, and that the employer is right to  demand more work for less pay?

We are appalled by the historical accounts  of workers in the "satanic mills", 
yet we don't object to the same thing going on in our time. This is the side of boundless profit seeking we choose to ignore. The pilots appear to be striking to have the Belfast pilots paid the same as them. If the rest of the world went on strike to demand that employers stop chipping away at wages and conditions, then the much admired " low wage economys " would not exist. Would we have the sweat shops in Aisa, or Americans who work three jobs and still cannot afford rent, or children scavenging in dumps in S. America?  
Yes, I know. We would have to pay more for things. Well lets pay it. It would mean a good quality of life everyone, instead of a sublime life for  some and an apalling life for others?


----------



## sinbadsailor (16 Aug 2007)

I doubt anyone in Aer Lingus knows what it's like to work for a company that has hit hard times. The old state mentality cannot not cope with the reality of a private company, needing to be profitable


----------



## sinbadsailor (16 Aug 2007)

Bluebells said:


> Why shouldn't a worker have a nice job with conditions? Why shouldn't they have plenty of time off to spend with their families? What is wrong with having perks? Why should the never ending quest for profit and financial gain operate at the expense of the worker? Are they not entitled to enjoy their working lives? Why shouldn't a worker go on strike to protect a good job with good conditions? Why should once, well paid jobs, become less well paid jobs?



Well how about trying to get the govt to change the law so the above fits everyone, private and state! The unions are selfish, they are out to squeeze every last cent from the companies they hold to ransom. Their members are either following blindly, not knowing any different (lower wage bracket jobs) or they are using the unions to extract as much from inside their position as possible. Their strikes usually affect the rest of us, mainly in the private sector with interruption of services etc.

So please dont try and sell the hard luck story....




Bluebells said:


> The pilots appear to be striking to have the Belfast pilots paid the same as them



Or maybe they just want to know that when they put in for the transfer to work closer to where they live, instead of having to drive to the south every day, they wont have to take a pay cut?



Bluebells said:


> We are appalled by the historical accounts  of workers in the "satanic mills",
> yet we don't object to the same thing going on in our time. This is the side of boundless profit seeking we choose to ignore. The pilots appear to be striking to have the Belfast pilots paid the same as them. If the rest of the world went on strike to demand that employers stop chipping away at wages and conditions, then the much admired " low wage economys " would not exist. Would we have the sweat shops in Aisa, or Americans who work three jobs and still cannot afford rent, or children scavenging in dumps in S. America?
> Yes, I know. We would have to pay more for things. Well lets pay it. It would mean a good quality of life everyone, instead of a sublime life for some and an apalling life for others?



Propaganda and FUD and has no bearing on this situation, A worker in a factory in Asia, no any factory are a far cry from a set of pilots and their union going on a power trip!


----------



## MrMan (16 Aug 2007)

> Their members are either following blindly, not knowing any different (lower wage bracket jobs)



nice generalisation


----------



## Purple (16 Aug 2007)

Bluebells said:


> The pilots strike, while a nusiance, has come about for the same reason as most strikes.
> It was the greed of employers, not workers, that brought about Trade Unions. They were formed to give rights, proper wages and a quality of life to the employees of abusive and avaricious employers, whose only motivation was not just profit, but _maximum _profit.


 While I agree in general your comment is a bit general and simplistic. They were formed in an era of huge social change where democratic and egalitarian values that had become the norm for middle classes were permeating down to working class people. This was the same era when people began to challenge Empires and women struggled for equal rights. Most of these causes were supported and often actively run and funded by the trade union movement. Unions have, thankfully, won those battles and now while they do good work on a micro level they generally act to protect special interest groups and support policies that transfer wealth from the poor to the middle classes. 



Bluebells said:


> While the modern employee is protected to a degree by legislation, the modern employer is still after maximum profit. The way to achieve this is high productivity and  low wages. The argument is, that this is business, and that unionised workers should stop trying to limit the ability of the employer to make as much money as possible. What this means is that an employer is allowed to make as much money as he can, but an employee is considered lazy and greedy if he wants to earn as much money as _he _ can.


 No it's not but _ he _ or (_ she _) should earn more on merit. Remember  "a fair days pay for a fair days work"? (It was in the Life of Brian ) 



Bluebells said:


> Why shouldn't a worker have a nice job with conditions?  Why shouldn't they have plenty of time off to spend with their families?  What is wrong with having perks?  Why should the never ending quest for profit and financial gain operate at the expense of the worker? Are they not entitled to enjoy their working lives? Why shouldn't a worker go on strike to protect a good job with good conditions?
> I know all the arguments about markets, and shareholders and profit margins. I know that without the employer we would all be destitute and we should be glad to have an income at all. I know that a company has to be profitable to pay it's workers. But how did we become conditioned into thinking that profit is the only thing that matters, and that the employer is right to  demand more work for less pay?


 There is no reason why workers should employees (I dislike the term "worker") should not have all the good things you list above but again it should be based on merit. This is not the 1860's, people can move jobs if they don't like the one they have. They are not serfs or indentured servants. Your phrase "Why should once well paid jobs, become  less well paid jobs?" is totally disingenuous. Aer Lingus is not reducing the pay of conditions of any pilot that works for them. A person getting paid €20K in Poland will have the same lifestyle as a person getting €100K in Ireland so if that's what local pilots earn why should any airline pay them much more because that's what their pilots get in another country. 



Bluebells said:


> We are appalled by the historical accounts  of workers in the "satanic mills",
> yet we don't object to the same thing going on in our time. This is the side of boundless profit seeking we choose to ignore. The pilots appear to be striking to have the Belfast pilots paid the same as them. If the rest of the world went on strike to demand that employers stop chipping away at wages and conditions, then the much admired " low wage economys " would not exist. Would we have the sweat shops in Aisa, or Americans who work three jobs and still cannot afford rent, or children scavenging in dumps in S. America?
> Yes, I know. We would have to pay more for things. Well lets pay it. It would mean a good quality of life everyone, instead of a sublime life for  some and an apalling life for others?


 Attempting to establish any equivalence between pilots in a former semi-state airline and Dickensian mill workers is utterly bogus. You should also do a bit of homework before you slot into secondary school debating society clichés about the big bad multinationals. I absolutely agree that they can and do behave very badly in some poor countries. Just remember that most of what we regard as exploitation of workers that takes place in those countries is perpetrated by locals and in many cases it is a result of abject poverty.

But this strike is not some crusade for social justice, it's not about the rights of others and it's not about the good of society. It's about a privileged group of upper class professionals resisting a perceived threat to their position of power.


----------



## shnaek (16 Aug 2007)

Might I also add here, that the reason the American companies moved here had a good deal to do with lower wages than were paid in the US. If American multinationals hadn't moved here then our wages wouldn't have risen as they have, and thus public sector pay rises wouldn't have been quite as generous, and Air Lingus pilots would be on less money.


----------



## Purple (16 Aug 2007)

shnaek said:


> Might I also add here, that the reason the American companies moved here had a good deal to do with lower wages than were paid in the US. If American multinationals hadn't moved here then our wages wouldn't have risen as they have, and thus public sector pay rises wouldn't have been quite as generous, and Air Lingus pilots would be on less money.



Excellent point.


----------



## efm (16 Aug 2007)

Bluebells said:


> Yes, I know. We would have to pay more for things. Well lets pay it. It would mean a good quality of life everyone, instead of a sublime life for some and an apalling life for others?


 
Well I, for one, am not willing to pay more, thank you very much!

What you seem to be proposing is the implementation of a global Marxist regime of equal distribution of wealth to deliver "a good quality of live [for] everyone".

I think that we have seen that this is nigh impossible to achieve!


----------



## redstar (16 Aug 2007)

I work for a large US corporation and my salary ls lower than the equivalent engineer grade in California. I wonder what would be the reaction if the employees in California went on strike because we in Ireland are paid less ?


----------



## Purple (16 Aug 2007)

redstar said:


> I work for a large US corporation and my salary ls lower than the equivalent engineer grade in California. I wonder what would be the reaction if the employees in California went on strike because we in Ireland are paid less ?



All your jobs would be moved to China?


----------



## sinbadsailor (16 Aug 2007)

MrMan said:


> nice generalisation



I know but take a group of workers, ask them individually to change something about their daily work and you will get a preformatted response.

'..change in work practices...' or '...down tools...'

All I'm saying is that unions do program their workers to think a certain way and to act in the same manner when provoked. The union would be powerless if this was not the case, they need unbridled support for their actions...


----------



## z108 (16 Aug 2007)

redstar said:


> I work for a large US corporation and my salary ls lower than the equivalent engineer grade in California. I wonder what would be the reaction if the employees in California went on strike because we in Ireland are paid less ?



Lets compare it to the Aer Lingus fiasco.

I wonder what would be the reaction if the employees in Ireland went on strike because workers in eastern europe/China are paid less ? Ireland would return to  a 1980's type situation and investment would flee the country. The Aer Lingus pilots are greedy and immature in my opinion. They need someone like Michael O' Leary to take them over. This will happen once they destroy the company and its share price with their stupid behaviour.


----------



## sinbadsailor (16 Aug 2007)

Agreed, for a group that has a major shareholding in the company, they are not being very intelligent with their actions regarding their investment.

Old state-mentality wrapped up in a new private sector, publicly traded suit.

I see Aer Lingus' future is blue!


----------



## Firefly (16 Aug 2007)

So are we all in agreement then that Belfast is not part of Ireland and part of the UK


----------



## Purple (16 Aug 2007)

Firefly said:


> So are we all in agreement then that Belfast is not part of Ireland and part of the UK



From an economic perspective anyway.


----------



## redstar (16 Aug 2007)

> Originally Posted by sign
> I wonder what would be the reaction if the employees in Ireland went on strike because workers in eastern europe/China are paid less ? Ireland would return to a 1980's type situation and investment would flee the country. The Aer Lingus pilots are greedy and immature in my opinion. They need someone like Michael O' Leary to take them over. This will happen once they destroy the company and its share price with their stupid behaviour.



Agreed. The union is just trying to flex some muscle to see whos the 'real' boss at Aer Lingus.



> Originally Posted by Firefly
> So are we all in agreement then that Belfast is not part of Ireland and part of the UK



Not just economically, but legally too.  British law and taxes apply in Belfast. The UN recognises Northern Ireland as part of the UK.
Now, as to whether it _should_ be part of the UK is another story for another thread ....


----------



## sinbadsailor (16 Aug 2007)

Firefly said:


> So are we all in agreement then that Belfast is not part of Ireland and part of the UK



Sure. Isnt that why the package for the pilots is different? Pensions dont work the same and you are dealing in sterling rather than euro's. Has no-one considered the fact that maybe the pilots who will be taking these jobs are prefectly happy with what is on offer! The unions don't have any jurasdiction once we go outside the republic? It's a stunt for some reason and nothing else.


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Aug 2007)

The pilots are simply defending their turf. Which they are entitled to do. Of course the company won't stop at the pilots it will do the same thing throughout the company. With the exception of the managment of course as they'll always find a way to pad their wallets. 

I've seen it on other industries. People work for a pittance, or for nothing in order to get into an industry, undercutting everyone thats already in it, and breaking the norms in that area. Once they finally get into the industry they find that the pay and conditions they undercut everyone to get no longer exist. They've devalued they industry and ultimately their own skills. Once an industry becomes solely governed by cost job security is gone. The work will simply move to the next low cost center in the world. 

That said people in high paying jobs are never going to get empathy from people financially worse off. But that doesn't mean they should accept erosion of their working conditions.


----------



## aircobra19 (16 Aug 2007)

shnaek said:


> Might I also add here, that the reason the American companies moved here had a good deal to do with lower wages than were paid in the US. If American multinationals hadn't moved here then our wages wouldn't have risen as they have, and thus public sector pay rises wouldn't have been quite as generous, and Air Lingus pilots would be on less money.



There was more to it than that. Theres was an english speaking, high tech skills pools. Also access into the EC and europe. 



redstar said:


> I work for a large US corporation and my salary ls lower than the equivalent engineer grade in California. I wonder what would be the reaction if the employees in California went on strike because we in Ireland are paid less ?



So what being on a lesser salary/conditions is a good thing?


----------



## Purple (17 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> With the exception of the managment of course as they'll always find a way to pad their wallets.


 Are you suggesting that the people who run companies are ethically and morally bankrupt? If so that's a bit of a sweeping generalisation isn't it? You seem to be stuck in the “Workers” and “management” mindset. It’s a nice simple idea but it doesn’t reflect the reality and is offensive to both groups that you seek to pigeon hole.  



aircobra19 said:


> I've seen it on other industries. People work for a pittance, or for nothing in order to get into an industry, undercutting everyone thats already in it, and breaking the norms in that area. Once they finally get into the industry they find that the pay and conditions they undercut everyone to get no longer exist. They've devalued they industry and ultimately their own skills. Once an industry becomes solely governed by cost job security is gone. The work will simply move to the next low cost center in the world.


 Can you give an example? 



aircobra19 said:


> There was more to it than that. Theres was an english speaking, high tech skills pools. Also access into the EC and europe.


 It was about cheap labour and low taxes, the low taxes bit being 80% of the equation. And now after they have helped to increase our living standards they are going to Poland and China etc and will help to raise living standards there. This is not the purpose of moving there but it is a consequence. Are you suggesting that poor countries having access to better paying jobs is a bad thing?


----------



## sinbadsailor (17 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> That said people in high paying jobs are never going to get empathy from people financially worse off. But that doesn't mean they should accept erosion of their working conditions.



I see erosion of working conditions as being forced to work in an un airconditioned building, or being pressured into working 60 hours a week, or being given no leeway to take time off in family emergencies, you know, real world problems.

I dont however, see erosion of work conditions as asking current employees to take a day or two out of their 35 days annual leave, or asking them to change to a different pension scheme etc!

The overall problem with Aer Lingus, and this includes management, is that they want to keep all of the perks, leave, pensions etc while being a public company. Going public means that your costs are paramount to the business, the bottom line becomes all important. The eomployees cannot dictate how it is run, the market will and there has to me a mentality shift and it is simply not happening at the Airport.


----------



## aircobra19 (17 Aug 2007)

Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that the people who run companies are ethically and morally bankrupt? If so that's a bit of a sweeping generalisation isn't it? You seem to be stuck in the “Workers” and “management” mindset. It’s a nice simple idea but it doesn’t reflect the reality and is offensive to both groups that you seek to pigeon hole.



Will we see all levels of Aer Lingus Managment from the top to the bottom,  being based outside of Ireland, and new managment staff of all levels being brought in with lower rates of pay and conditions than existing staff? If theres lower costs to be taken advantage of why not include managment in that.



Purple said:


> It was about cheap labour and low taxes, the low taxes bit being 80% of the equation. .



Theres always been other places with lower taxes and cheaper than Ireland. So they can't be the only reasons.



Purple said:


> Are you suggesting that poor countries having access to better paying jobs is a bad thing?



Are you saying you shouldn't try and defend your pay and conditions?


----------



## Sunny (17 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> The pilots are simply defending their turf. Which they are entitled to do. Of course the company won't stop at the pilots it will do the same thing throughout the company. With the exception of the managment of course as they'll always find a way to pad their wallets.


 
But that is what is stupid about this strike. In very few other companies do employees own so a large stake so they should have an interest in supporting the management and not damaging the airline. If they don't like the decision, they can voice their discontent at the next shareholders meeting alongside Michael O Leary who by the way must think all his birthdays have come at once over the past few weeks. Thats where their real power lies. But why do the pilots have the right to damage the value of EVERY employees shareholding in the company??


----------



## aircobra19 (17 Aug 2007)

sinbadsailor said:


> I see erosion of working conditions as being forced to work in an un airconditioned building, or being pressured into working 60 hours a week, or being given no leeway to take time off in family emergencies, you know, real world problems.
> 
> I dont however, see erosion of work conditions as asking current employees to take a day or two out of their 35 days annual leave, or asking them to change to a different pension scheme etc!



You mean like pilots been demoted for refusing to fly extra sectors, or pilots who should be on sick leave being pressured into flying instead. Promotions only being blocked in order to bring in lower paid staff. Promotion blocked or no job security unless you relocate to another country. 



sinbadsailor said:


> The overall problem with Aer Lingus, and this includes management, is that they want to keep all of the perks, leave, pensions etc while being a public company. Going public means that your costs are paramount to the business, the bottom line becomes all important. The eomployees cannot dictate how it is run, the market will and there has to me a mentality shift and it is simply not happening at the Airport.



As far as I'm aware pilots pay and conditions are on roughly on a par with "similar" airlines around europe. The pilots are not striking about the shannon move. They are striking at the companies attempt to circumvent existing agreements which are obviously aimed at reducing the pilots pay and conditions. If you want to talk about cost cutting. How about Dermot Mannion's 200k top up to his pension. Or his basic salary of €380,000. No worries about costs there.


----------



## sinbadsailor (17 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> You mean like pilots been demoted for refusing to fly extra sectors, or pilots who should be on sick leave being pressured into flying instead. Promotions only being blocked in order to bring in lower paid staff. Promotion blocked or no job security unless you relocate to another country.



Are you talking about Aer Lingus, or the 'other' Irish airline? I can't see any union letting the above happen without a serious flight! 




aircobra19 said:


> As far as I'm aware pilots pay and conditions are on roughly on a par with "similar" airlines around europe. The pilots are not striking about the shannon move. They are striking at the companies attempt to circumvent existing agreements which are obviously aimed at reducing the pilots pay and conditions.



It's as simple as this. The union have no jurasdiction over employees in another country. The action is unwarranted. Each local market is a unit in itself. If Aer Lingus turn around and try to 'erode' the 'working conditions' of the 'Irish' pilots, then plan action. As far as I know these UK pilots wont be members of an Irish union?



aircobra19 said:


> If you want to talk about cost cutting. How about Dermot Mannion's 200k top up to his pension. Or his basic salary of €380,000. No worries about costs there.



Did I or did I not state that management as well as employees in Aer Lingus need to change the mentality. The CEO of Aer Lingus is far from perfect in his business decisions, Shannon is a major misjudgement, but I doubt Aer Lingus is making that decision by itself, if you know what I mean!


----------



## aircobra19 (17 Aug 2007)

Sunny said:


> But that is what is stupid about this strike. In very few other companies do employees own so a large stake so they should have an interest in supporting the management and not damaging the airline. If they don't like the decision, they can voice their discontent at the next shareholders meeting alongside Michael O Leary who by the way must think all his birthdays have come at once over the past few weeks. Thats where their real power lies. But why do the pilots have the right to damage the value of EVERY employees shareholding in the company??



Look at the bigger picture. For years the pilots have had been back and forward through one dispute after another as the management make and turn around then break one agreement after another. Its like standing on quicksand. What the managment are doing now is trying to break all agreements. Its not just AerLingus pilots have a problem with this the international body [SIZE=-1]*IFALPA* have got involved now. 

The pilots care enough about the company and their careers to have invested heavily in it, even [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]their pension funds. Thats not nothing. [/SIZE]


----------



## sinbadsailor (17 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> [SIZE=-1]The pilots care enough about the company and their careers to have invested heavily in it, even [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]their pension funds. Thats not nothing.[/SIZE]



The pilots union you mean. I would have serious doubts that each and every pilot wanted to invest the amounts required in what was essentially and excercise to buy shares just to prevent Mr OLeary from buying them. From and investment point of view, I don't think it was a wise move


----------



## Sunny (17 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> Look at the bigger picture. For years the pilots have had been back and forward through one dispute after another as the management make and turn around then break one agreement after another. Its like standing on quicksand. What the managment are doing now is trying to break all agreements. Its not just AerLingus pilots have a problem with this the international body [SIZE=-1]*IFALPA* have got involved now. [/SIZE]
> 
> [SIZE=-1]The pilots care enough about the company and their careers to have invested heavily in it, even [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]their pension funds. Thats not nothing. [/SIZE]


 
What agreement is Aer lings breaking? The labour court already said they are entitled to hire workers at local rates outside Ireland. I don't see any other Aer Lingus union shouting from the rooftops. Why are the pilots so special?


----------



## aircobra19 (17 Aug 2007)

sinbadsailor said:


> Are you talking about Aer Lingus, or the 'other' Irish airline? I can't see any union letting the above happen without a serious flight!



I leave you draw your own conclusions. But thats what the pilots don't want. Obviously. 



sinbadsailor said:


> It's as simple as this. The union have no jurasdiction over employees in another country. The action is unwarranted. Each local market is a unit in itself. If Aer Lingus turn around and try to 'erode' the 'working conditions' of the 'Irish' pilots, then plan action. As far as I know these UK pilots wont be members of an Irish union?



Your thinking sole in terms of Ireland. The aviation industry is global. Breaking pilot agreements and unions effects the industry globally. Which is why [SIZE=-1]*IFALPA are involved. * [/SIZE]



sinbadsailor said:


> Did I or did I not state that management as well as employees in Aer Lingus need to change the mentality. The CEO of Aer Lingus is far from perfect in his business decisions, Shannon is a major misjudgement, but I doubt Aer Lingus is making that decision by itself, if you know what I mean!



Yes I agree. The style of managment seems to be lets cause conflict because we might gain something out of it, with no realisation that conflict and disputes harms the company, and the bottom line more than the gain they are trying to achieve. 

Actually no.


----------



## aircobra19 (17 Aug 2007)

Sunny said:


> What agreement is Aer lings breaking? The labour court already said they are entitled to hire workers at local rates outside Ireland. I don't see any other Aer Lingus union shouting from the rooftops. Why are the pilots so special?



Its all over the press which agreements. If you make an agreement then go out of your way to to circumvent it. You really can't be trusted to stand over anything you've said. 

Like the old joke. How do you know if theres a pilot in the room. They'll tell you. Pilots like to think they're special, but its a simple case of supply and demand.

Pilots can't be trained overnight and not just anyone can be a pilot. You also can't just move a pilot from one aircraft type to another over night. So its like a resource that has to be carefully managed as you can't increase supply instantly on demand. Since you can't operate an airline without pilots its resource you can't do without. (Not yet any way). Its also an expensive resource to train and maintain. So basically pilots are a critical resource for an airline.


----------



## Sunny (17 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> Pilots can't be trained overnight and not just anyone can be a pilot. You also can't just move a pilot from one aircraft type to another over night. So its like a resource that has to be carefully managed as you can't increase supply instantly on demand. Since you can't operate an airline without pilots its resource you can't do without. (Not yet any way). Its also an expensive resource to train and maintain. So basically pilots are a critical resource for an airline.


 
Especially when they block companies attempts to hire new ones. Why should exisiting workers dictate what new employees are paid? I don't tell my company what new colleagues should be paid and I work in a specialised professional role. The labour court and Flynn report clearly said that Aer Lingus were allowed to open bases outside Dublin and hire on local pay and conditions. Why didn't the pilots start throwing their toys out of their prams then?? The pilots in Belfast are going to be paid the same if not more than Dublin based pilots. Even the Union accept this. The problem is the pension scheme. The company don't want them to have access to a defined benefit scheme. Welcome to the real world. The existing pilots should thank their lucky stars that they have a defined benefit scheme and allow new prospective pilots decide for themselves if they are happy with the terms and conditions offered


----------



## shanegl (17 Aug 2007)

I'm sick of this protectionist nonsense. If Belfast pilots want to work for different pay and benefits then that's entirely their choice. Let the market decide their wage packet. If they can't hire people for the package they're offering then they'll have to increase it. If not, then that's the true value of the Belfast pilot's work. Welcome to the private sector Aer Lingus employees!


----------



## aircobra19 (17 Aug 2007)

You saying everyone for themselves. Taken to its conclusion some people would work for free with no benefits to get the experience. Some will even pay to do it. Which is why people pay 80-100k to get qualified as a CPL and type rated to be a commercial pilot. 

You're arguing for a lower pay and conditions and no job security.


----------



## shanegl (17 Aug 2007)

In the private sector there's no such thing as job security! I'm only arguing for lower pay if that's what the market decides. And if it does, then so be it! Just goes to show how overpaid some people in the public sector can be.


----------



## Firefly (17 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> You saying everyone for themselves. Taken to its conclusion some people would work for free with no benefits to get the experience. Some will even pay to do it. Which is why people pay 80-100k to get qualified as a CPL and type rated to be a commercial pilot.
> 
> You're arguing for a lower pay and conditions and no job security.


 
It's a free market. If people want to pay to get experience then best of luck to them...nobody's forcing them. Trainee accountants and solicitors earn pittance with no guarantee of earnings when they qualify so why should it be different for pilots?


----------



## sinbadsailor (17 Aug 2007)

In case you havent noticed it's 2007, factories are now running on more and more automated systems, lower end jobs are becoming extinct. You have to educate yourself, and step up to the mark for a job these days, nothing is handed to you anymore.

The unions are just there to protect their own interests. Let's be honest here, if a lot of the workforce currently in union controlled jobs were to get in line for private sector, modern day company jobs, they would have a snowballs chance of getting it.

This 'tantrum-like' actions to 'changes' not erosions in how people are expected to fuction in their job has had it's day. You need to grow as an employee, as a person, learn new skills, instead of being afraid of them, basically have a drive to better your self both personally and professionally.
Otherwise, you will be left behind. And where will the unions be for you then!


----------



## aircobra19 (17 Aug 2007)

So you'll all be happy knowing that surgeon or pilot, looking after you and yours, is working long shifts, tired and stressed because of the working conditions and is worried about their job security and instead of taking a day, off decided to come in and work.  Obviously the consequences of making a mistake are exactly the same as working on a production line or working as a trainee accountant or solicitor.


----------



## Sunny (17 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> So you'll all be happy knowing that surgeon or pilot, looking after you and yours, is working long shifts, tired and stressed because of the working conditions and is worried about their job security and instead of taking a day, off decided to come in and work. Obviously the consequences of making a mistake are exactly the same as working on a production line or working as a trainee accountant or solicitor.


 
Well if you have to resort to that argument, you must be getting desperate. It is thrown out by all these professions to scare people. I don't remember Aer Lingus saying they expected the Belfast pilots to fly longer than their Dublin colleagues and put lives in jeopardy. Why would any company encourage people to risk an accident by over working and seriously damage if not destroy the business??


----------



## sinbadsailor (17 Aug 2007)

The majority of employees are not in the danger that people make out. If you do your job well, give respect to your employer and decide to work for a company that has a good track record, then there is nothing to worry about.

And if down the line, the company for whatever reason hits hard times and have to let people go, especially if they are traded on the stock market, it's hardly personal and would not be down to the company trying to 'screw' it's employees, the employees after all make the company profitable and hence rise the share price and hence allow them to increase wages etc.


----------



## YouNeek (17 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> You saying everyone for themselves. Taken to its conclusion some people would work for free with no benefits to get the experience. Some will even pay to do it. Which is why people pay 80-100k to get qualified as a CPL and type rated to be a commercial pilot.
> 
> You're arguing for a lower pay and conditions and no job security.


 
There is also risk / reward here. You may pay 80 - 100 K for training, but that's no guarantee of a job in your preferred location, at your preferred salary level.

Remember the taxi drivers who paid 80K for a plate and car, before deregulation meant that anyone could buy a plate for 5K.

Market conditions can and do change.


----------



## sinbadsailor (17 Aug 2007)

Sunny said:


> seriously damage if not destroy the business??



Totally, this is the crux of the matter. Once Aer Lingus went public, company profits must come first. It is in everyones best interests to work on improving those profits. It is also up to management to ensure that the employees benefit from good times as well as he company. And as far as I can see, changes Aer Lingus have proposed before this Shannon/Pilot debacle, were not in any way 'eroding' of their workers rights.


----------



## aircobra19 (17 Aug 2007)

Sunny said:


> Well if you have to resort to that argument, you must be getting desperate. It is thrown out by all these professions to scare people. I don't remember Aer Lingus saying they expected the Belfast pilots to fly longer than their Dublin colleagues and put lives in jeopardy. Why would any company encourage people to risk an accident by over working and seriously damage if not destroy the business??



Deperate is comparing flying a 10-80 tons or more at 400mph, an asset worth millions, and being responsible for hundreds of people with working on a production line in a factory etc.  Its non uncommon for a company to sacrifice the long term for short term gains. Especially if theres poor management with poor vision. 

Moving their bases out of Ireland, and only concentrating on the higher profit routes will move jobs out of ireland, and mean few or no-one operates on regional routes. But then once you privatise a company you lose the ability to use it to support regional or national development. Same thing as Eircom.


----------



## aircobra19 (17 Aug 2007)

sinbadsailor said:


> Totally, this is the crux of the matter. Once Aer Lingus went public, company profits must come first. It is in everyones best interests to work on improving those profits. It is also up to management to ensure that the employees benefit from good times as well as he company. And as far as I can see, changes Aer Lingus have proposed before this Shannon/Pilot debacle, were not in any way 'eroding' of their workers rights.



Workers rights?


----------



## Sunny (17 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> Deperate is comparing flying a 10-80 tons or more at 400mph, an asset worth millions, and being responsible for hundreds of people with working on a production line in a factory etc. Its non uncommon for a company to sacrifice the long term for short term gains. Especially if theres poor management with poor vision.
> .


 
Who is comparing the two jobs? Do you have any evidence that Aer Lingus is encouraring or coercing its pilots to carry out unsafe work practices? This dispute is not about dangerous work practices. If it was, I would be the first to support them. It is about money plain and simple. And to try and drag safety issues into it when even the unions themselves have never claimed that hiring pilots in Belfast will lead to safety issues is bizzare and misleading.


----------



## sinbadsailor (17 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> Workers rights?



What about them, It's implicit in my post, or I thought it was, that your employer is covering your workers rights. It is not a workers right to strike if something changes in their daily working life, you adapt, continue on with your job, and as long as you are still treated properly under employment law, there is no problem.

The business landscape changes, the marketplace changes, hence movements in share price. You need to be flexible in how you approach your work, be willing to change. You job will at some stage become redundant, you cannot stop this.

Workers rights is just thrown out there to protect a cushie number, with loads of holidays and pay that is above and beyond what your job responsibility commands.


----------



## aircobra19 (17 Aug 2007)

Sunny said:


> Who is comparing the two jobs? Do you have any evidence that Aer Lingus is encouraring or coercing its pilots to carry out unsafe work practices? This dispute is not about dangerous work practices. If it was, I would be the first to support them. It is about money plain and simple. And to try and drag safety issues into it when even the unions themselves have never claimed that hiring pilots in Belfast will lead to safety issues is bizzare and misleading.



I didn't bring comparisons with other jobs into this thread. Someone asked what "special" about pilots. Hence my reply Their job is quite different from other careers. 



sinbadsailor said:


> What about them,...



Thats my point. What about them. You brought it up not me. 

At the end of the day the company wants to relocate, (outsource in effect), existing jobs in order to reduce staffs pay and conditions. To circumvent existing hard won agreements.  I don't that will improve things for exsiting staff. The business case for the move is marginal at best. Time will tell.


----------



## Sunny (17 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> At the end of the day the company wants to relocate, (outsource in effect), existing jobs in order to reduce staffs pay and conditions. To circumvent existing hard won agreements. I don't that will improve things for exsiting staff. The business case for the move is marginal at best. Time will tell.


 
As far as I am aware none of the pilots in Dublin will be affected. They won't be asked to relocate, they won't be made redundant, they won't have a pay cut, they won't lose any pension entitlements, there won't be any change in their work practices...

So why are are they striking? What business is it of theirs what Aer Lingus does in belfast. They are paid to fly planes, not to dictate business decisions. As I said before, they can team up with Michael O Leary and let the management know what they think at an EGM. They don't have to ruin 50,000 peoples holiday plans, business trips etc to get their point accross


----------



## aircobra19 (17 Aug 2007)

Why?

[broken link removed]


----------



## shanegl (17 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> The business case for the move is marginal at best. Time will tell.


 
The pilots don't agree with you.



> IALPA support Aer Lingus’ investment in Northern Ireland; IALPA wish to see such investment in the context of an All Island economy of equal partners rather than a two-tier one.


----------



## Purple (17 Aug 2007)

The pilots’ statement is a case study in selective use of the facts.
Dell has opened a plant in Poland. If Dublin or Limerick based staff wanted to apply for jobs there why should they get the same pay rates that they get here (unless they are offered a short term contract to relocate there in order to support the plant start up)?


----------



## shanegl (17 Aug 2007)

Of course not. And its standard practise when (permanently) transferring to a foreign subsiduary that you resign your post and begin a new contract in the other country.


----------



## Purple (17 Aug 2007)

shanegl said:


> Of course not. And its standard practise when (permanently) transferring to a foreign subsiduary that you resign your post and begin a new contract in the other country.


 Yes, but we have established that pilots are special, and that Aer Lingus pilots are the mostest special ones of all!


----------



## shanegl (17 Aug 2007)

Indeed. Nothing like a bit of scarcity power to make you special!


----------



## room305 (18 Aug 2007)

shanegl said:


> I'm sick of this protectionist nonsense. If Belfast pilots want to work for different pay and benefits then that's entirely their choice. Let the market decide their wage packet. If they can't hire people for the package they're offering then they'll have to increase it. If not, then that's the true value of the Belfast pilot's work. Welcome to the private sector Aer Lingus employees!



I couldn't agree more. I work in specialised area, where training takes years and an investment of tens of thousands with no guarantee of success. It's unlikely mistakes on my part will cause people to die but it could potentially cost a company millions, or in the worst case cause the company to fail entirely. This is not in itself particularly special as many workers in the Irish economy are similarly skilled with similar levels of responsibility. At an aggregate level if we wish to avail of some of the highest wages in the world, then we need to be the most productive employees in the world.

If the Aer Lingus pilots are so in demand then the market will pay them highly for their services. It is likely that is why they feel they can act in such a childish, petulant manner without fear of retribution. However, it is truly disgusting that they take such a cavalier attitude to the jobs of their less well qualified co-workers who will lose their jobs if Aer Lingus fails as a result of the strike.



aircobra19 said:


> So you'll all be happy knowing that surgeon or pilot, looking after you and yours, is working long shifts, tired and stressed because of the working conditions and is worried about their job security and instead of taking a day, off decided to come in and work.  Obviously the consequences of making a mistake are exactly the same as working on a production line or working as a trainee accountant or solicitor.



I don't know about surgeons but I know a few junior doctors and they work in absolutely brutal conditions. Still, as long as those pilots don't feel compelled to get out of bed if they're feeling a little out of sorts ...


----------



## Purple (18 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> Deperate is comparing flying a 10-80 tons or more at 400mph, an asset worth millions, and being responsible for hundreds of people with working on a production line in a factory etc.



What about the factory workers in a place like Boston Scientific in Galway or Allergan? If one of those factory workers that you dismiss so flippantly makes a mistake people could die. In the case of Allergan, or any other pharmaceutical company, thousands of people could die. It's unlikely but it is possible.
The airbus planes that Aer Lingus fly are capable of landing under auto pilot so it's not as if the poor pilot is up there flying by the seat of his pants. I am not saying that they don’t have a high level of responsibility or that they should not near the top of the heap pay wise in whatever country they are based in. I am saying that just like every other company in the free world Aer Lingus should have the right to hare locally at local rates.


----------



## gonk (18 Aug 2007)

Purple said:


> I am saying that just like every other company in the free world Aer Lingus should have the right to hare locally at local rates.


 
And just like all other workers in the free world, the pilots have a right to withdraw their labour.

From the pilots' point of view, the above analysis is a bit simplistic. Belfast is very close to Dublin - with the new motorways, you could probably drive to Dublin Airport faster from Belfast than you could from Bray. The pilots are understandably concerned that if crew are hired in Belfast on worse pay and conditions than in Dublin, this may be used over time as a bargaining chip to reduce conditions in Dublin.

Comparing them with factory workers is not valid - Aer Lingus is an international transport company whose staff are by nature mobile. In the context of the recent switch of services from Shannon to Dublin, and the notorious case of Irish Ferries sacking its Irish workers to replace them with cheaper Eastern European labour, the pilots' position is entirely understandable.


----------



## aircobra19 (18 Aug 2007)

At the end of the day theres always going to begrudgery (especially in Ireland) against well paid people protecting their jobs. Theres been a long history of trying to devalue pilots at aer lingus this is just another to add to the list.


----------



## aircobra19 (18 Aug 2007)

Purple said:


> What about the factory workers in a place like Boston Scientific in Galway or Allergan? If one of those factory workers that you dismiss so flippantly makes a mistake people could die. In the case of Allergan, or any other pharmaceutical company, thousands of people could die. It's unlikely but it is possible.
> The airbus planes that Aer Lingus fly are capable of landing under auto pilot so it's not as if the poor pilot is up there flying by the seat of his pants. I am not saying that they don’t have a high level of responsibility or that they should not near the top of the heap pay wise in whatever country they are based in. I am saying that just like every other company in the free world Aer Lingus should have the right to hare locally at local rates.



Yes good analogy. A factory worker is solely responsible for a drug being made and getting to the consumer. Exactly the same thing. 

Another good analog The planes flying themselves. Why don't you write and tell the airlines they are all fools for hiring pilots that take years to train, are expensive to train, retrain and pay. The planes fly themselves. Instant money saving. 

[SIZE=-1]With the money saved Mannion could give himself another bonus. He got €982,000 last year incl a €260,000[/SIZE] bonus. Obviously hes feeling the pinch himself.


----------



## RainyDay (18 Aug 2007)

Here's my 2c worth;

1) It is almost amusing to see those bleating most loudly about the cuts in Shannon being those who welcomed/encouraged/drove the privatisation of Aer Lingus, i.e. IBEC and their fellow-travellers. It seems that their commitment to the free market economy flies straight out the window when their own back yard comes under threat.

2) It is of course a logical outcome of the privatisation that the Shannon service would be cut, if more profitable options exist for the Heathrow slot. And of course, it is only a matter of time before the Cork routes get cut. And once EI find that there are more profitable options for the transatlantic service than Dublin, we will find the direct Dublin-US flights cut in favour transiting via some low-cost hub (probably in the Baltics).

3) It is equally amusing to hear the proponents of the free market economy squeal when the employees start to play them at their own game, i.e. purchase shares and use shareholder power to direct the company strategy. Isn't the whole purpose of these companies to enrich shareholder value? And if the shareholders choose to do this through salaries and/or conditions (rather than dividends or capital growth), then surely the free market rules apply? So those who oppose this approach should either purchase a majority of shares to overrule them, or sell out and invest elsewhere?

4) It is no accident that EI advertised the pilots positions first for the Belfast. They know well that there isn't huge sympathy for those earning €100k+ salaries. Let's not lose sight of the fact that they will take exactly the same approach with the check-in staff, the trolly-dollies and the baggage handlers. All will get squeezed and squeezed down to minimum wage conditions. So the next time the check-in girl doesn't roll out the red carpet with her welcoming smile, you'll know why this happens. The next time the trolly-dolly had difficulty understanding your request to heat the baby's bottle (because of course, she can barely speak English), you'll know why this happens.


----------



## Purple (18 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> At the end of the day theres always going to begrudgery (especially in Ireland) against well paid people protecting their jobs.
> 
> With the money saved Mannion could give himself another bonus. He got €982,000 last year incl a €260,000[/SIZE] bonus. Obviously hes feeling the pinch himself. [SIZE=-1]


 Yes, I know what you mean.



aircobra19 said:


> Yes good analogy. A factory worker is solely responsible for a drug being made and getting to the consumer. Exactly the same thing.


Are you being sarcastic or do you not understand the point I made (or both)?
If any of the many people who make the drug screw up people can die, just as if any of the many people who keep the plane in the air screw up then people will die. Do you accept that or do you think the pilot designs, builds and services the aircraft, designs, builds and writes the software for the ground control systems, designs and builds the runways, audits the suppliers of all of the above etc?
If you do you should let the people at Airbus, Boeing, SITA, IBM, the CAA, the FAA and all the other hundreds of thousands of people all around the world who do jobs that if not done properly could result in people on airplanes dying.


----------



## aircobra19 (18 Aug 2007)

It not the same thing at all. Most people are abstracted from the majority of risk through layers of QA, Validation etc. There would have to be lot of compunded mistakes in that kind of chain. A pilot might make a mistake and fly into the ground. No one else involved. Same with a doctor, wrong treatment, slip of a knife. Look how many avation accidents and incidents are "pilot error".


----------



## Purple (18 Aug 2007)

RainyDay said:


> 1) It is almost amusing to see those bleating most loudly about the cuts in Shannon being those who welcomed/encouraged/drove the privatisation of Aer Lingus, i.e. IBEC and their fellow-travellers. It seems that their commitment to the free market economy flies straight out the window when their own back yard comes under threat.


I agree. If the government want to keep Aer Lingus in Shannon (and I think they should) they should make it commercially attractive to do so.



RainyDay said:


> 2) It is of course a logical outcome of the privatisation that the Shannon service would be cut, if more profitable options exist for the Heathrow slot. And of course, it is only a matter of time before the Cork routes get cut. And once EI find that there are more profitable options for the transatlantic service than Dublin, we will find the direct Dublin-US flights cut in favour transiting via some low-cost hub (probably in the Baltics).


 This is pure conjecture informed by ideology rather than logic.



RainyDay said:


> 3) It is equally amusing to hear the proponents of the free market economy squeal when the employees start to play them at their own game, i.e. purchase shares and use shareholder power to direct the company strategy. Isn't the whole purpose of these companies to enrich shareholder value? And if the shareholders choose to do this through salaries and/or conditions (rather than dividends or capital growth), then surely the free market rules apply? So those who oppose this approach should either purchase a majority of shares to overrule them, or sell out and invest elsewhere?


 The employees are not doing so. A powerful group with a vested interest are attempting to use their shares to damage the rest of the company to serve their own selfish ends. I could paraphrase president Hoover here but I won’t.  



RainyDay said:


> 4) It is no accident that EI advertised the pilots positions first for the Belfast. They know well that there isn't huge sympathy for those earning €100k+ salaries. Let's not lose sight of the fact that they will take exactly the same approach with the check-in staff, the trolly-dollies and the baggage handlers. All will get squeezed and squeezed down to minimum wage conditions. So the next time the check-in girl doesn't roll out the red carpet with her welcoming smile, you'll know why this happens. The next time the trolly-dolly had difficulty understanding your request to heat the baby's bottle (because of course, she can barely speak English), you'll know why this happens.


All red herrings. Scare mongering with a very unpleasant xenophobic undertone. 
I would support the pilots if Aer Lingus attempted to reduce their pay or conditions except in a situation of dire need. This is a protest about who runs the airline, the management or the pilots. The hiring of pilots in a different country has nothing to do with them. It is standard practice around the world that airlines hire at the local rate. Why should Aer lingus be different?


----------



## Bluebells (19 Aug 2007)

Sunny said:


> As far as I am aware none of the pilots in Dublin will be affected. They won't be asked to relocate, they won't be made redundant, they won't have a pay cut, they won't lose any pension entitlements, there won't be any change in their work practices...
> 
> So why are are they striking? What business is it of theirs what Aer Lingus does in belfast. They are paid to fly planes, not to dictate business decisions. As I said before, they can team up with Michael O Leary and let the management know what they think at an EGM. They don't have to ruin 50,000 peoples holiday plans, business trips etc to get their point accross



They won't get promoted. Aer Lingus are recruiting Captains. This means that they will never need to promote an existing Aer Lingus pilot. They will just retain them at this level, and use Belfast based pilots to fly out of Dublin.


----------



## Bluebells (19 Aug 2007)

sinbadsailor said:


> Well how about trying to get the govt to change the law so the above fits everyone, private and state! The unions are selfish, they are out to squeeze every last cent from the companies they hold to ransom. Their members are either following blindly, not knowing any different (lower wage bracket jobs) or they are using the unions to extract as much from inside their position as possible. Their strikes usually affect the rest of us, mainly in the private sector with interruption of services etc.
> 
> So please dont try and sell the hard luck story....
> 
> ...



What is FUD?
Why do you say propaganda? Do you not believe that millions work in terrible conditions?
The same principles apply -  Employer trying to squeez maximum from the worker. Always when a company is not making a big enough profit, the blame is laid at the door of the worker. The wage bill is too high, the productivity is too low. A pity they have to pay wages atall.


----------



## Bluebells (19 Aug 2007)

Purple said:


> " While I agree in general your comment is a bit general and simplistic. They were formed in an era of huge social change where democratic and egalitarian values that had become the norm for middle classes were permeating down to working class people. This was the same era when people began to challenge Empires and women struggled for equal rights. Most of these causes were supported and often actively run and funded by the trade union movement. Unions have, thankfully, won those battles and now while they do good work on a micro level they generally act to protect special interest groups and support policies that transfer wealth from the poor to the middle classes " [/QUOTE
> 
> Unions predated the events you refer to.
> 
> ...


Of course it is not about social justice and the rights of others.I didn't mean that they were demanding parity on behalf of prospective Belfast pilots for the good of society. They are demanding it so their jobs and promotional prospects won't all eventually go North.
 What is wrong with protecting their position? If the employer trys to take as much as he can, why can't the worker try to take as much as he can?


----------



## RainyDay (19 Aug 2007)

Purple said:


> This is pure conjecture informed by ideology rather than logic.


Yes, indeed it is conjecture, but no so much informed by ideology as informed by what happened during the privatisation. There was much conjecture about Shannon before the election, and Cullen was quite clear that Govt would use its shareholding to protect Shannon. Funny how things are not quite so clear-cut now. So just to be clear, are you suggesting that there will be no changes to the schedule for Cork over the next 12 months or so, and Dublin over the next 2-3 years?



Purple said:


> The employees are not doing so. A powerful group with a vested interest are attempting to use their shares to damage the rest of the company to serve their own selfish ends. I could paraphrase president Hoover here but I won’t.


That's one way of spinning it. Another way is to say that a group of employees are taking legitimate industrial action to protect their future within the airline. And if the ESOT come out and support the pilots, where will that leave us?


Purple said:


> All red herrings. Scare mongering with a very unpleasant xenophobic undertone.


Unpleasant indeed, though not untypical of the views of the average EI customer. I don't understand your 'red herring' and 'scare mongering' reference. Are you suggesting that EI won't proceed to recruit low level staff on much lower rates than Dublin if they manage to break the pilots?


Purple said:


> This is a protest about who runs the airline, the management or the pilots.


Perhaps it's a protest about who runs the airline, the management or the Board representing the shareholders?


----------



## Purple (19 Aug 2007)

Bluebells said:


> If the employer trys to take as much as he can, why can't the worker try to take as much as he can?


 Your phraseology is rather out dated. A carpenter with a couple of lads working for him, a small shop with a few staff, a milkman with a guy working for him, they are all employers. Your archaic way of looking at things suggests that none of the above work as they are not "workers" but "management". The bad news for those who are stuck in a 1900's mindset is that managers work and workers are involved in management. 
In the real world of 2007 the clear lines you use to divide the world just don't exist.


----------



## shanegl (19 Aug 2007)

> 4) It is no accident that EI advertised the pilots positions first for the Belfast. They know well that there isn't huge sympathy for those earning €100k+ salaries. Let's not lose sight of the fact that they will take exactly the same approach with the check-in staff, the trolly-dollies and the baggage handlers. All will get squeezed and squeezed down to minimum wage conditions. So the next time the check-in girl doesn't roll out the red carpet with her welcoming smile, you'll know why this happens. The next time the trolly-dolly had difficulty understanding your request to heat the baby's bottle (because of course, she can barely speak English), you'll know why this happens.



Welcome to the free market. If consumers are willing to pay less for a lower quality service then that's exactly what's going to happen. If not, then Aer Lingus will lose customers.


----------



## RainyDay (19 Aug 2007)

Purple said:


> Your phraseology is rather out dated. A carpenter with a couple of lads working for him, a small shop with a few staff, a milkman with a guy working for him, they are all employers. Your archaic way of looking at things suggests that none of the above work as they are not "workers" but "management". The bad news for those who are stuck in a 1900's mindset is that managers work and workers are involved in management.
> In the real world of 2007 the clear lines you use to divide the world just don't exist.





Purple said:


> This is a protest about who runs the airline, the management or the pilots.


A little contradictory, surely?


----------



## sinbadsailor (20 Aug 2007)

Bluebells said:


> What is FUD?
> Why do you say propaganda? Do you not believe that millions work in terrible conditions?
> The same principles apply -  Employer trying to squeez maximum from the worker. Always when a company is not making a big enough profit, the blame is laid at the door of the worker. The wage bill is too high, the productivity is too low. A pity they have to pay wages atall.



FUB = Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt....it's all the padding, bull and other stuff in the media that is designed to prevent you getting to the base truth about something. In this case the unions sing the song that workers are being persecuted and need saving/protecting, but also more money to maintain their level of productivity.

Every private sector industry makes people 'earn' their bonus, wage increase and the professionals that try, are rewarded. The private sector can thrive without unions, so it's not all doom and gloom and 'protect the poor workers'. Unions are not needed, end of.

I do believe that 'some' workers are in bad conditions, but as I have heard before on various radio shows etc, you have to look at the local market where these factories are. Not everyone has the same standard of living, so a sweatshop to someone on the M50 in their air-conditioned X5 is a welcome change to someone who jsut got a job in the factory, that gets them out of the fields in 40+ degrees of heat for 14 hours a day.

Again, people do not have the ability to take all factors into account when posting their opinion.


----------



## Sunny (20 Aug 2007)

I don't remember all these posts talking about protecting jobs and wages when companies were flooding into Ireland to take advantage of our cheaper labour and low taxes. These jobs came from somewhere else and people in other countries lost jobs for our benefit but we didn't seem to care. But now that companies feel they can get cheaper labour in another country, people are up in arms crying about how unfair it is.

My understanding is that around 20 pilots currently based in Dublin want to transfer to Belfast. The company is saying that they will have to apply with outside candidates and accept local pay and conditions. Where is the problem? Would they be giving out if local pay and conditions dictated that the pilots would be paid 200 grand. Oh yeah, then the Dublin pilots wouldn't be happy 

And I have seen no evidence that the company plans to use the Belfast pilots to undermine the Dublin based ones. Surely the Belfast based pilots can just refuse to fly from Dublin if they feel they are being used to exploit their colleagues. Then the Union might have some support.


----------



## gonk (20 Aug 2007)

Sunny said:


> And I have seen no evidence that the company plans to use the Belfast pilots to undermine the Dublin based ones..


 
Well of course. There will be no evidence unless and until the company actually does this. However, in my view, the Dublin-based pilots have good grounds for suspecting this is part of the company's agenda in opening this base.



Sunny said:


> Surely the Belfast based pilots can just refuse to fly from Dublin if they feel they are being used to exploit their colleagues..


 
Not if it's in their contract that they may be required to do so from the time they are hired.



Sunny said:


> Then the Union might have some support.


 
The union does have plenty of support, albeit not from you.


----------



## Bluebells (20 Aug 2007)

sinbadsailor said:


> FUB = Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt....it's all the padding, bull and other stuff in the media that is designed to prevent you getting to the base truth about something. In this case the unions sing the song that workers are being persecuted and need saving/protecting, but also more money to maintain their level of productivity.
> 
> Every private sector industry makes people 'earn' their bonus, wage increase and the professionals that try, are rewarded. The private sector can thrive without unions, so it's not all doom and gloom and 'protect the poor workers'. Unions are not needed, end of.
> 
> ...



What does your middle paragraph mean? 
Why do you say 'some'?
Do you mean no unions anywhere, ever?


----------



## aircobra19 (20 Aug 2007)

Sunny said:


> I don't remember all these posts talking about protecting jobs and wages when companies were flooding into Ireland to take advantage of our cheaper labour and low taxes. These jobs came from somewhere else and people in other countries lost jobs for our benefit but we didn't seem to care. But now that companies feel they can get cheaper labour in another country, people are up in arms crying about how unfair it is.
> 
> My understanding is that around 20 pilots currently based in Dublin want to transfer to Belfast. The company is saying that they will have to apply with outside candidates and accept local pay and conditions. Where is the problem? Would they be giving out if local pay and conditions dictated that the pilots would be paid 200 grand. Oh yeah, then the Dublin pilots wouldn't be happy
> 
> And I have seen no evidence that the company plans to use the Belfast pilots to undermine the Dublin based ones. Surely the Belfast based pilots can just refuse to fly from Dublin if they feel they are being used to exploit their colleagues. Then the Union might have some support.



You looking at it simple local terms. When its really an international issue. The pilots hired in Blefast won't be trained or operated or promoted on a local scope but anywhere in the company. The company has a history of trying to renage on negociated agreements. Many of the agreements are in place for issues of promotion, senoirty etc. Lots of those are the same internationally. Some restrict how a pilot can move between airlines. Basically you lose senority if you move. AFAIK On rare occasions an airline will waive that but not typically. Basically theres a lot riding on this for the pilots for their future careers, as they see it. 

The way I see it regardless of their complaing the pilots have it pretty good. Most people would think they won the lottery to have a job as good. But having said that. They are entitled to try and maintain their positions. I don't that much sympathy for them. But I just have less empathy for the company/managment at Aer Lingus based on their track history. Paying themselves bonuses while expecting the staff to take hits in order to make more profits.


----------



## Sunny (20 Aug 2007)

gonk said:


> Well of course. There will be no evidence unless and until the company actually does this. However, in my view, the Dublin-based pilots have good grounds for suspecting this is part of the company's agenda in opening this base.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Suspecting management of something is not grounds for striking and disrupting the plans of 50,000 customers. There are mechanisms in place for dealing with concerns. 

I have not seen one Union official claim that they think the Belfast pilots will undermine their Dublin counterparts or will be sent in to fly from Dublin at lower wages. Their argument has been that the Belfast pilots should be paid the same as Dublin pilots as Belfast as it is not a foreign base.

I will support a Union that I think is acting for the good of all employees of a company. If the pilots cause is so just, why aren't the other unions in Aer Lingus coming out to support them?? And where the pilots when all the ground staff in Aer Lingus were having their working conditions changed?


----------



## sinbadsailor (20 Aug 2007)

Bluebells said:


> What does your middle paragraph mean?
> Why do you say 'some'?
> Do you mean no unions anywhere, ever?



Middle paragraph basically means that workers in the private sector, who don't have the 'protection' of a union, get a job based on merit, do that job and if they do it well, they get rewarded for their hard work.

Not all workers work in bad conditions? Bad conditions to one person is not bad conditions to the other?

Obviously not, unions don't make sense to me in this day and age, not in a country like Ireland anyway. We're not talking coal mines and woolen mills here


----------



## Purple (20 Aug 2007)

RainyDay said:


> A little contradictory, surely?


I don't see why.
There may well be pilots in management and I'm sure pilots as a group have an input into how the company is run (formally or informally) but this strike is about the pilots as a block trying to prevent the airline growing as a company in order to protect what they see as their own interests and not the interests of the company as a whole or indeed the interests of all of the existing employees.


----------



## Bluebells (21 Aug 2007)

sinbadsailor said:


> Middle paragraph basically means that workers in the private sector, who don't have the 'protection' of a union, get a job based on merit, do that job and if they do it well, they get rewarded for their hard work.
> 
> Not all workers work in bad conditions? Bad conditions to one person is not bad conditions to the other?
> 
> Obviously not, unions don't make sense to me in this day and age, not in a country like Ireland anyway. We're not talking coal mines and woolen mills here



Well I am. Instead of basing your opinions on things you "heard on various radio prgrammes etc", have a look at the modern coalmining industry. Compare the death rates between unionised mines and the non unionised. While you are at it sinbadsailor, have a peek at the shipping industry. Pay particular attention to the shipbreakers lives in India. A Union might make sense to them. Then check out the computer recycling industry in Aisa.


----------



## sinbadsailor (21 Aug 2007)

Bluebells said:


> Well I am. Instead of basing your opinions on things you "heard on various radio prgrammes etc", have a look at the modern coalmining industry. Compare the death rates between unionised mines and the non unionised. While you are at it sinbadsailor, have a peek at the shipping industry. Pay particular attention to the shipbreakers lives in India. A Union might make sense to them. Then check out the computer recycling industry in Aisa.



Coal-mining, shipping, shipbreaking and computer recycling are not what is in discussion here. We are talking about unions protecting the interests of educated, high income earners and their attitude to protecting cushie jobs, outdated and unsustainable pensions etc. In these industries unions serve only to feather the beds of the union officials and give public sector workers more privileges that private sector workers.

I suggest starting another thread to highlight the plight of what you have mentioned above, as while tragic, is not on point.


----------



## Purple (21 Aug 2007)

Bluebells said:


> While you are at it sinbadsailor, have a peek at the shipping industry. Pay particular attention to the shipbreakers lives in India. A Union might make sense to them. Then check out the computer recycling industry in Aisa.


 Indeed. I'm sure a union will sort out the problem of the child slaves on Lake Volta in Ghana, or the death rates amongst the indentured slaves in the salt mines in Niger, or the forced labour used in brick kilns in India, Pakistan and Nepal. Or maybe a democratic government that legislates for the people is the answer and you assertion that a union will help sort out the appalling poverty that these people live in and the idea that a union is the answer is utter nonsense.
As my family was heavily involved in the foundation of the union movement in this country I have taken a passing interest in it. The unions of the early part of the last century fought for basic and much needed protection for employees and were part of a much larger movement for social justice that has campaigned for the abolition of slavery and women's rights. The reality is that they won those battles and the things they sought are now covered by legislation. The idea that the Aer Lingus pilots  are in some way continuing the good struggle in the tradition of Connolly or Larkin is utter rubbish. They are a rich and powerful group attempting to safeguard their position of privilege to the detriment of the general public. It just shows how much the public sector (and former public sector) unions have betrayed their heritage.


----------



## Bluebells (22 Aug 2007)

Purple said:


> Indeed. I'm sure a union will sort out the problem of the child slaves on Lake Volta in Ghana, or the death rates amongst the indentured slaves in the salt mines in Niger, or the forced labour used in brick kilns in India, Pakistan and Nepal. Or maybe a democratic government that legislates for the people is the answer and you assertion that a union will help sort out the appalling poverty that these people live in and the idea that a union is the answer is utter nonsense.
> As my family was heavily involved in the foundation of the union movement in this country I have taken a passing interest in it. The unions of the early part of the last century fought for basic and much needed protection for employees and were part of a much larger movement for social justice that has campaigned for the abolition of slavery and women's rights. The reality is that they won those battles and the things they sought are now covered by legislation. The idea that the Aer Lingus pilots  are in some way continuing the good struggle in the tradition of Connolly or Larkin is utter rubbish. They are a rich and powerful group attempting to safeguard their position of privilege to the detriment of the general public. It just shows how much the public sector (and former public sector) unions have betrayed their heritage.



The Aer Lingus pilots are employees. Their employers are employing more pilots on lower wages.  This has an implication for the promotional prospects of the existing pilots, as Aer Lingus are recruiting at Captain level. They, as employees, go to work and do their job, the same as any other employee.  I don't know why you say they have a position of privilege. They didn't just walk into the jobs.  
They are entitled to defend themselves, regardless of how the public perceive them. 
Very few employers operate for the benefit of the public. They exist to generate profit. Employees work to earn a living, not to benefit the public. The employer wants to maximise profits, the employee wants to maximise earnings. 
I'm not defending the pilots in particular, just their or any other employee's right to protest.


----------



## room305 (22 Aug 2007)

Bluebells said:


> The Aer Lingus pilots are employees. Their employers are employing more pilots on lower wages.  This has an implication for the promotional prospects of the existing pilots, as Aer Lingus are recruiting at Captain level. They, as employees, go to work and do their job, the same as any other employee.  I don't know why you say they have a position of privilege. They didn't just walk into the jobs.
> They are entitled to defend themselves, regardless of how the public perceive them.
> Very few employers operate for the benefit of the public. They exist to generate profit. Employees work to earn a living, not to benefit the public. The employer wants to maximise profits, the employee wants to maximise earnings.
> I'm not defending the pilots in particular, just their or any other employee's right to protest.



So what you're saying is that if I discover my company has been recruiting in India for similar positions at a lower salary, then myself and my buddies should just down tools until they increase the salary of our Indian counter-parts? Now, imagine this replicated in every company in Ireland and envision the economy in a few short years afterwards.

Warning to the Aer Lingus pilots, steep learning curve ahead.


----------



## Sunny (22 Aug 2007)

Bluebells said:


> The Aer Lingus pilots are employees. Their employers are employing more pilots on lower wages. This has an implication for the promotional prospects of the existing pilots, as Aer Lingus are recruiting at Captain level. They, as employees, go to work and do their job, the same as any other employee. I don't know why you say they have a position of privilege. They didn't just walk into the jobs.
> They are entitled to defend themselves, regardless of how the public perceive them.
> Very few employers operate for the benefit of the public. They exist to generate profit. Employees work to earn a living, not to benefit the public. The employer wants to maximise profits, the employee wants to maximise earnings.
> I'm not defending the pilots in particular, just their or any other employee's right to protest.


 
Why is profit such a dirty word to so many people???? I presume since you are against companies maximising profit you hold your pension fund in cash??? You would swear companies make all this profit and put it under the mattress.
Employees have the right to defend themselves and nobody will deny that but in this day and age there are enough industrial relations bodies ready to step in and help negotiations. The fact that they their first course of action was to declare a strike shows the mentality of these guys.
This thing will end by Dublin pilots accepting that Belfast pilots should be on different terms and conditions, Dublin pilots who transfer to Belfast will not lose out and there is also be a little sweetener for the rest of the Dublin pilots to make up for their stress and suffering. Amazing how all industrial grievances can be solved by throwing money at it.


----------



## aircobra19 (22 Aug 2007)

room305 said:


> So what you're saying is that if I discover my company has been recruiting in India for similar positions at a lower salary, then myself and my buddies should just down tools until they increase the salary of our Indian counter-parts? Now, imagine this replicated in every company in Ireland and envision the economy in a few short years afterwards.
> 
> Warning to the Aer Lingus pilots, steep learning curve ahead.



What steep learning curve? Why do people keep comparing this to Irish companies? Airlines operate internationally. So they compare themselve with other international companies and their pay scales. AFAIK Aer Lingus is on a par with in peers in Europe anyway. (I'm open to correction) Look at it this way. How about you have to train those indian counter-parts to do the same jobs you. They can be bought in to do your job in your location, and when promotional opportunities arise in your location, they can promoted ahead of you. Or they can be brought in to fill promotion roles without them being offered to you. At the same time they are cheaper to employ and operate than you are. Eventually in effect they bypass the existing seniority ladder and existing working agreements. 

I don't have much empathy for people earning a lot of money, but I can see why they'd have a problem with this. If theres no promotional opportunites, they'll have to move companies to advance. Which means moving to another country. Again no ones going to have empathy for people who can well afford to do this. But thats not the point.


----------



## Sunny (22 Aug 2007)

aircobra19 said:


> What steep learning curve? Why do people keep comparing this to Irish companies? Airlines operate internationally. So they compare themselve with other international companies and their pay scales. AFAIK Aer Lingus is on a par with in peers in Europe anyway. (I'm open to correction) Look at it this way. How about you have to train those indian counter-parts to do the same jobs you. They can be bought in to do your job in your location, and when promotional opportunities arise in your location, they can promoted ahead of you. Or they can be brought in to fill promotion roles without them being offered to you. At the same time they are cheaper to employ and operate than you are. Eventually in effect they bypass the existing seniority ladder and existing working agreements.
> 
> I don't have much empathy for people earning a lot of money, but I can see why they'd have a problem with this. If theres no promotional opportunites, they'll have to move companies to advance. Which means moving to another country. Again no ones going to have empathy for people who can well afford to do this. But thats not the point.


 
Why didn't they wait till the company started promoting these cheap labour pilots from Belfast instead of offering the promotions to Dublin based pilots. Basically they threatened to strike on something the company *might *do and not on what it did. If every union had that idea, the country would be on permanent strike.


----------



## aircobra19 (22 Aug 2007)

Sunny said:


> Why didn't they wait till the company started promoting these cheap labour pilots from Belfast instead of offering the promotions to Dublin based pilots. Basically they threatened to strike on something the company *might *do and not on what it did. If every union had that idea, the country would be on permanent strike.



Again you are looking at this in isolation. The current dispute is the latest in a long history of disputes. http://www.rte.ie/business/2005/0720/aerlingus.html . I assume this history of disputes and [SIZE=-1]renaging [/SIZE]on agreement after agreement, has led a situation where the pilots has little faith in the managment.


----------



## DublinTexas (22 Aug 2007)

I think is not commercial at all, this is pure politics boiled down to the unions opinion that Belfast it is not a *foreign* base. Simple as that. _I am not making any statement to the political point of this, that is up to everyone him/herself._

The pilots (as part owners of the company) can't have any commerical interest in stopping their own company from making profit by deploying common practices of paying people as to where their place of work/base is.

I work in a multinational and my counterpart in England get's a different salary/conditions than my counterpart in Frankfurt for exactly the same work. There is nothing complicated about that. All 3 of us are free to apply for any promotion that there might be anywhere in the company and than the salary/conditions will be according to the place of work for that (there are some execptions for inter company transfers).

That such a small airline as AerLingus is having problems adopting to an international rollout (politcis about the status of Belfast as foreign base aside) is no wonder, any company that is expanding is having such trouble.

I personaly don't fly AerLingus not because of the "busdrivers" in the cockpit but rather the bad ground and inflight service so I won't be directly affected by them striking but the impact on the irish economy is going to be harsh.

Striking for polictical rather than economical reasons or of fear that there might be problem down the road in an expansion plan is just wrong.

I think the union should wake up and smell the coffee.. Expanding is good..


----------



## sinbadsailor (22 Aug 2007)

Simply put, Aer Lingus and it's management and empoyees need to understand that the company is publicly traded now. All their decisions affect the price, which affects the company. It's one big machine, to whcih they all play a part. They collectively  control the success/failure of the company.

The company as a whole needs to re-prioritise and change their focus. The old state owned political ways of running the company will not cut it in this current climate. As pervious poster said, expansion is required to be competitive and it is a good thing. Just take the pain that comes with it, and if done properly the company will thrive


----------

