Aer Lingus Strike
- Thread starter Sunny
- Start date
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.
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 240
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.
Also, too much time on their hands, as it's not as if they are overworked now is it.
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
"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
Z
z108
Guest
I completely agree with this !
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Last edited:
sinbadsailor
Registered User
- Messages
- 240
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
Registered User
- Messages
- 240
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....
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?
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!
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.
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
) 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.
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.
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.
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!
All your jobs would be moved to China?