nice generalisation
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 are we all in agreement then that Belfast is not part of Ireland and part of the UK
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.
Originally Posted by Firefly
So are we all in agreement then that Belfast is not part of Ireland and part of the UK
So are we all in agreement then that Belfast is not part of Ireland and part of the UK
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.
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 ?
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.With the exception of the managment of course as they'll always find a way to pad their wallets.
Can you give an example?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.
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?There was more to it than that. Theres was an english speaking, high tech skills pools. Also access into the EC and europe.
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.
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.
It was about cheap labour and low taxes, the low taxes bit being 80% of the equation. .
Are you suggesting that poor countries having access to better paying jobs is a bad thing?
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 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.
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.
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.
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??
[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]
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]
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!
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?
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!
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?