Support the strike

March 21, 2010

Teamstar, the US Union said it hadn’t ruled out banning it’s members from handling BA baggage, in a show of solidarity with the strikers. BA said that action by a secondary union was against US law. This amazes me. Why does a law like that exist? Why do companies have more rights than people? Why aren’t workers allowed to show solidarity against a corrupt regime? Afterall, Americans think it’s okay to own guns in the knowledge that they may need to overthrow a corrupt Government, so why are corrupt businesses given such protection? Why is there a bill of rights for the abstract concept of “company“? If that isn’t proof that the protection of the rights of those at the top is more important than the majority, i’m not sure what is.

BA said it was sad to see overseas Unions support:

“unjustified strikes against an iconic British brand”

If all else fails, if incompetent and a bully style of management, and scandal after scandal is starting to make management look like the wolves in sheep’s clothing……….. appeal to Nationalism. It never fails in the realm of the idiots.

The Tories, reminiscent of 1979 today announced they would fight the power of the Unions. Members of the Unite Union working for British Airways voted in favour of strike action, and are today on strike.

Let’s get one thing straight from the start, BA is not at risk. The strikers, are not putting BA at risk. BA is the British market leader in international flights. It started to lose it’s top spot, before recession hit. The cabin crew on strike, were not responsible for that. Bad management, was responsible for that. The Tories who are now criticising Brown for being weak with the unions, are far weaker in their unwavering support for unbelievably incompetent management.

The Union offered 60 million in cuts, with a 2 year pay freeze on it’s staff. The staff were ready to accept it. Walsh didn’t think it went far enough. To him, the only way this is over, is if the Union is totally broken, so he can bully as much as he damn well pleases. I hope he fails.

There is something fundamentally wrong with a system that rewards incompetence and greed and punishes those who simply wish to protect their livelihood. Obviously i’m going to be incredibly bias, because just looking at BA Chief Exec. Willie Walsh’s smug face, on the left, makes me want to convert to fundamental Christianity and stone him to death.

The Sun reading British public, owing to it’s great sense of idiocy and selfishness is largely against the strike action. Regardless of how poorly management of BA has been, and regardless of how many jobs are on the line, the public seem to hate the strikers, simply because it might put a few holidays at risk. The death of brotherhood, and the ongoing nightmare World of the narcissistic consumer.

So why the anger at the striking cabin crew?

  • It wasn’t the Cabin crew who created the huge pension deficit. It was Willie Walsh’s management.
  • It wasn’t the Cabin crew who were fined £270,000,000 for price fixing. It was Willie Walsh’s management (this resulted in huge job losses, to pay for it.) He tried to manipulate costs. And yet, he wasn’t sacked.
  • It wasn’t the Cabin crew who fucked up over Terminal 5. It was Willie Walsh’s management.
  • It wasn’t the Cabin crew who ran the company so far into the ground, that 30,000 workers whose livelihoods depend on their wage packet, were asked to work for nothing. It was because of Willie Walsh’s management. The union actually called for better management, instead of workers working for free, surely that makes more sense?
  • The distrust of BA because of it’s dirty tricks economically, is not the Cabin crew’s fault. It was Willie Walsh’s management.
  • It wasn’t the Cabin crew who went to the Supreme Court to block industrial action. It was Willie Walsh.
    In short, the head of BA, Willie Walsh is a crook. An appalling manager. 13,500 people don’t just decide to strike because they want to ruin your holiday, or they want a bit of a break, or they’re “greedy”. They have a reason. And that reason, is still in charge of a company he damn near destroyed. The strikers don’t hate BA. The strikers want to save BA.

    Overpaid arrogant bankers and managers have screwed the entire system over, for the past thirty years. Lehman Brothers, and Goldman is testament to that. Walsh is just another one of the same breed of greedy bastards who have somehow convinced a generation that they are indispensable. They are not indispensable. They should be dispensed of as soon as possible. The Tories, quite clearly support ruthless Capitalism. Because whilst jobs and livelihoods at BA are threatened by management who bully their staff…….. BA stock price is at the highest it’s been in over six months. Which suggests that whilst staff are being threatened daily with cuts in the wages they rely on to survive, the shareholders, who quite clearly have a bit of money anyway given that they have shares in BA……… are making more money.

    If a President or Prime Minister were to run a Country as badly and with bullying tactics as Willie Walsh has ran BA, the public would be supremely outraged. When a company does it, the public don’t seem to care. The way of Capitalism. Greed and selfishness wins every time.

    What a wondrous system this is.

    David Cameron said:

    “The BA strike threatens the future of one of Britain’s greatest companies along with thousands of jobs. But will the Prime Minister come out in support of the people who cross the picket line? No – because the Unite union is bankrolling the Labour Party”

    Firstly, why are the strikers threatening BA? I don’t think they are. Why hasn’t Cameron mentioned the bad management, the scandals, the threats, the bullying? This leads me on to my second point…
    Cameron will never mention poor management and a need to curve excessive and rather fascist business tactics, because big business donated almost £5.9million to the Conservative Party last year. Big business is the Conservative Party. Anything that slightly threatens big business, is going to be called socialist, destructive, terrible for Britain.

    What Cameron means is, those like Willie Walsh should be allowed to bully their staff all they want and there should be nothing anyone can do about it.
    Let’s not forget that it is thanks to a brotherhood of workers, that those of us who complain about unions, have a minimum wage to fall back on, and a universal healthcare system to look after us when we’re ill, and better working conditions in so much as we’re not choking on deadly gases in our workplaces, or our kids being sent down mines.

    Kenneth Clarke suggested that we’re heading back to the 1970s and allowing the Unions to take over England. So, the polar opposite of the Unions taking control, is big business. As an example, i’ll use Lloyds Group.

    Lloyds today announced it has made profits of £3.5bn. They seem over joyed. The reason they were overjoyed is because recently, the took over HBOS, which had a plethora of toxic debts, which were then transfered to Lloyds, who miscalculated the risk. Lloyds shareholders decided to take over HBOS. The workers didn’t have any say, obviously, because that would be EVIL SOCIALISM!!!! So thankfully, those wondrous Capitalists were on hand to save the day………….. by having to appeal to Socialism to bail it out. The Government then took 43% of Lloyds over. The wondrous Capitalists who were going to save the day from EVIL SOCIALISM!!!! then announced they were taking on Andy Hornby as a consultant on £60,000 a month; the very same Andy Hornby who was at the top of HBOS and drove it into the ground. So whilst Lloyds needed desperately a government bail out because they’d made a huge mistake buying HBOS, they could still afford to pay an incompetent lunatic £60,000 as a consultant. A man who drove his bank into the ground, was now earning £60,000 advising another Bank how to run it’s business. But wait, those wondrous Capitalists weren’t finished saving the day yet. After making mistake after mistake, they then cut 15000 jobs. Lloyds, the largest employer in Aylesbury had effectively shut down the town by cutting 300+ jobs, because of supremely incompetent management. At what point does the Chancellor, who represents our 43% share in the business, step in and tell the management that we don’t want our money back as a Country, if it means 15000 lose their jobs. We’re not a Tory country. We don’t believe that sort of thing is perfectly acceptable.
    And these are the people who should be running the show as opposed to Unions?

    For those of you who believe the Unions have too much power, and deplore the BA strike…….. you are simply fighting in favour of protecting a system that allows mindless management thugs to control the lives of the very people who fund their luxurious lifestyles.
    BUT AS LONG AS YOUR HOLIDAY ISN’T AFFECTED!
    The idea that they should be happy to even have a job, amazes me, and doesn’t even warrant a response.

    I fully support Unions, in all their attempts to advance workers rights and curve the oppression of selfish incompetent fatcats.


  • The World has gone mad

    June 10, 2009

    The World is seriously losing the plot. Firstly, The E.U Parliament gains it’s first two Nazi BNP members. Said day for British Democracy indeed. Secondly, the news reported by the Sunday Telegraph, that Alliance Boots have taken on Andy Hornby as their new Chief Executive.

    When I went 4p overdrawn late last year, Lloyds charged me £15 for the privilege. Plus, £6 a day, until I paid it back. I got the letter informing me I’d gone overdrawn, two days later, and so with the daily charge, another £12 on top of the £15. I went into Lloyds to speak to the manager. I had 4p with me, plus I was nice enough to bring an extra 2p, a whole half of what i’d gone over, as a penalty that I thought was adequate. The manager told me that I should look after my account better, and that £27, for going 4p over, was perfectly acceptable, and given that I didn’t have £27 that day, i’d have to come back the next day, with the charge then at £33. Why he thought i’d have £33 tomorrow, when I didn’t have £27 today, is beyond me. Greed, i’d imagine. This, was two days after Lloyds had just received a bail out from tax payers. It was a couple of months before the Government side-stepped monopoly rules, to allow Lloyds to pretty much take over half the banking sector, including HBOS which was acquired in a rush, with an expected loss of £8bn, when in fact, it was £10.8bn, which of course had massive implications for it’s workforce. Not so much for it’s rich executives. And they have the nerve to lecture me, for going 4p over drawn, despite themselves going £2.8bn overdrawn? Can I charge them for that? I don’t have the taxpayer to bail me out.

    Former CEO of HBOS Andy Hornby played his part in the dodgy dealings worth a pre-tax loss of £10.8bn to HBOS in 2008. Hornby was thus forced to step down when Lloyds Group took over the toxic debts of HBOS in January 2009, but was rehired by Lloyds Group as a consultant, for £60,000 a month. Which is bad enough. Especially considering HM Treasury were forced to prop up Lloyds Group in 2009, by taking a 43% stake in the Company. I’m pretty sure I could take on a role as a banking CEO, and make such extreme loses, leading to a financial disaster, huge job losses, huge loan scale backs leading to the deaths of many businesses, and huge home repossessions, if it means I take home a lovely big bonus and a new £60,000 a month job.

    Lloyds haven’t faired much better since taking over the mess left by Hornby. In December 2008, they systematically cut off funding to Interpal, one of the few remaining humanitarian charities in Gaza, dedicated to helping Orphaned children and those who cannot help themselves. Then of course, there was the news in February, from the Treasury and reported in The Guardian, that Lloyds had been disguising tax avoidance schemes as American Financial institution investments. Followed most recently, two days ago in fact, by the news that Lloyds paid back £4bn worth of preference shares to HM Treasury in order to avoid £480m of annual interest, whilst simultaneously cutting 1660 jobs across 164 Cheltenham and Gloucester branches. The UK Government propped up the failing Lloyds Group, after it took on such toxic assets, not simply so the Lloyds executives could pay Andy Hornby £60,000 a month, whilst laying off 1,660 people. Is this “trickle down economics“? The closing of 164 C&G branches, will have an adverse affect on local businesses and projects. Lloyds should be ashamed. The UK Government should be ashamed. As a Lloyds customer myself, I’m wondering what the incentive is to remain loyal to these people. It simply exists to benefit those like Hornby. To make sure those people, those rich few, remain so. Not only that, but the moment the job cuts were announced, the share price shot up. Seriously, the World has lost the plot. It woudlseem that their thinking revolves around the idea that the sooner they can get to the stage where they’re able to pay out ridiculously huge bonuses to those who do not deserve it, the better.? No, fuck right off! If I were part of the Treasury, with a 43% stake in Lloyds Group, the first thing I do when they announce they want to cut 1660 jobs, and cut 164 branches of a much loved high street bank, whilst paying consultants £60,000 a year and paying the treasure back, is to tell them to keep the £4bn, until they are able to pay it back, without such huge cutbacks. If that’s ten years down the line, so be it.

    Alliance Boots, of all the people they could have chosen as their next Chief Executive, they go for a man who lost his last company, £10.8bn. A monkey would have been a more reliable option.


    We already know!

    January 26, 2009

    So it would seem, that last week in British Politics became decidedly boring. This in turn, meant the BBC had very little to report. Which meant, it’s editors were forced to submit articles to the Politics section of the BBC News website, that appear to have been posted by Captain Obvious.

    Take this article, referring to the leader of the Liberal Democrat’s Nick Clegg’s claims on the Andrew Marr show, that The Tories offer nothing different to pull Britain through tough economic change.
    Clegg is quoted as saying … “I don’t believe for a moment that a Conservative government will take radical action to make the tax system fairer.” … As if we didn’t already know this. Firstly, they aren’t called Conservatives for no reason. Radical isn’t really in their vocabulary. Secondly, when the word “Radical” does breach Conservative Security, the Country ends up with a Thatcher. I cannot imagine anyone in the Country other than the greedy bankers she spawned, would want to see radical Conservatives again.
    Clegg wasn’t finished with the obvious statements. He went on to suggest that a Tory Government would not help those on middle or lower incomes. Again, did he really need to make that point? Does anyone seriously believe a Conservative Government who have pledged to simply do nothing productive for the less advantaged in Society during this long horrible recession, are the best choice for those struggling the most?
    The Conservative Party Website says… “Our welfare programme will be delivered by private and voluntary providers, who will only be paid when someone gets and keeps a job.
    Combined with our commitment to end the couple penalty in the tax credits system, our radical welfare plans will help lift almost half a million children out of poverty
    .”…. Private Welfare? Delivered by those out for profit? Not only can I see that pushing more people into poverty given that they pledge to not raise minimum wage, but I foresee that parents will feel forced to work longer hours, meaning that work becomes more important than family. The Tories will never help poor families. We do not need Mr Clegg to point that out.

    Late 2008, Goldman Sachs asked for a $7,000,000,000 bail out. They put $6,000,000,000 aside for bonuses, according to The Guardian. It defended it’s bonuses by suggesting bonuses are needed to attract the best people. The best people, who seemingly lost £1.4bn for the fourth-quarter of 2008. I’m quite happy to lose that much money for a company, if it means a hefty bonus at the end. Bring it on.
    Similarly, according to The Daily Mail, between 2003 and 2007, Sir Fred Goodwin, boss of Rbos received £15.5million in pay and bonuses, and Eric Daniels of Lloyds TSB received £10.2million.
    The housing market boom, seeing prices pushed for modest properties, way beyond the £1million mark, is estimated to have been worth an incredible £5.5bn according to Savills, in London, by City Bonus buyers alone. Greed. Nothing more than pure Greed. So why has it taken so long for an MP to stand up and critise this greed culture. Lord Myners told The Times, that “The golden days of huge bonuses are over” and that “grossly over-rewarded” executives must shoulder some of the blame for the global recession. In short, right winged economic policy, the concept that deregulated… “the markets will save the World!!” is so horribly overestimating the power of the greedy minority who rule the World. Lord Myners went on to uncover himself as Captain Obvious, with this “Let us be quite clear: there has been mismanagement of our banks.” No shit.

    Whenever I watch Parliament, in particular Prime Minister’s Questions, it strikes me as inconceivable how little Parliament is actually allowed to scrutinise Whitehall. It does not matter how many time the Prime Minister is asked a question, he will never answer it truthfully, and he will try his very hardest to sneak around the question. And yet, The BBC seems to think it’s a story worth telling that the Prime Minister wont answer MPs questions adequately. As if it’s shocking. As if we didn’t already know they do this. According to the BBC citing The Ministerial Code, Members of the Government should be…….” as open as possible with Parliament and the public, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest“…. and yet quite evidently, they aren’t, in fact, they couldn’t be further from that rule if they tried.
    We know that Labour is incredibly out of touch, we know that they have very little support, we know they do themselves very little favours when they try to block calls for more transparency and scrutiny, like the full disclosure of MPs allowances under the Freedom of Information act, which Harriet Harman has been using the most ridiculous legal jargon to postpone quite tragically for Democracy, as long as possible. But it goes even deeper into the realms of the hypocritical and ridiculous when Labour’s Deputy commons leader Chris Bryant tells the BBC that openness is vital in Parliament.
    Norman Baker goes on to, according to the BBC “accuse Mr Brown of using stock excuses to avoid answering questions“. Is this really a story? The entire country knows just how slimey Politicians are when it comes to the truth. You just have to sit watching Prime Ministers questions to know this.

    Captain Obvious has been busy, neatly suggesting that the title of this blog “futile Democracy” isn’t as radical a claim as first may seem.


    Follow

    Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

    Join 1,197 other followers