Salocin

Unions Strike Again

I've always been a little confused by people's reactions to strikes, and the justification for walking out on one's job. I can understand it in the case of significantly bad working conditions or systematic mistreatment of employees, but nowadays - especially on the continent - workers will walk out for the slightest thing. The recent strike by British Airways employees has me more confused than ever.

The BBC states that

Passengers have criticised BA's response to the industrial action, saying no staff are on hand to help those stranded - causing "human gridlock".

There seems to be a logical flaw in that. What should BA's response to the industrial action have been? They obviously can't assign staff to the desks since the staff just walked away.

The workers were protesting against a new swipe card entry system, called Automated Time Recording, which allows managers to monitor their working hours.

 

It is understood staff are worried that the system, due to be introduced on Tuesday, could lead to staff being sent home during quiet periods.

This is another source of confusion for me. This is a timecard system. Similar systems have been in place in many industries for years. It helps the company track the cost of labour and catch people that systematically arrive late or leave early. The fact that the union should be resisting it so vehemently seems suspicious to me, and I wonder whether their stated reason is the real purpose behind the strike.

Perhaps the union hasn't made any noise in so long they felt they were becoming redundant and decided to find some issue to make themselves relevant again? Or perhaps some employees complained that the company is "looking over their shoulders" and not trusting them. Maybe that's the case, but going on strike is a questionable way of restoring a company's faith in the dedication of its workforce.

And what about the travellers trust in the company's employees? I now know that my travel plans, my holidays, my business travel needs and an entire day of my time are respected so little by the employees of British Airways that they're willing to sacrifice the lot so as to not have to punch in. If it is politically convenient for BA's staff to damage my welfare in order to improve their lot in life, they're happy to do it. What if many people chose not to fly BA anymore as a consequence - would the workforce and the union be willing to take the hit in their paycheque if the company's earning power were damaged by their actions? Seems to me they're willing to play such games so long as they're playing with other people's money and other people's welfare.

A union source said staff had returned as "a gesture of goodwill to passengers".

I suppose the passengers should be grateful to the union for not ruining their holiday plans now? And what of the passengers who had to sleep the night in an airport? Are they grateful? Will they blame the company and not fly BA again? What damage has the union really done? Given that BA is generally much better than its American counterparts, it'll probably be all right, but I've certainly lost some respect for it's ground staff.

Posted by nlvp at July 19, 2003 04:50 PM