BAA strike will close UK airports on Jan 7, 14, 17 & 18

[alanmj]

BAA workers have voted to strike as of 06:00 am for 24 hours on Jan 7 and Jan 14, and for 48 hours on Jan 17. The strike will affect Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Southampton, Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen airports.

As usual with my luck, I'm transiting through Heathrow on the 7th landing at 06:30am and departing at 09:00am.....

 

[jerseyfinn]

Alan, thanks for the heads up. I didn't even know about this possible strike.

Thought I'd post this strike update as of 28 December. Today's London Daily Telegraph says that negotiations have broken off between BAA & union officials. So folks should keep their eyes and ears open as we move into January.

I hope they work things out before your flight Alan. My wife and I will just miss the second strike when we depart LGW on 13 January. I thought this sort of stuff only happens in France.

Barry

 

[alanmj]

Union leaders have today called off the first of the three strikes, the one for 7th January... so at least my travel plans are not going to be disrupted. I hope no TUGgers will be affected by any of the other strike dates.

 

[Keitht]

I'm pleased to hear that the first of the strikes has been called off. I'm not convinced that the union members would actually have supported the strike call anyway as the changes to the pension system don't affect current employees anyway.

 

[alanmj]

I'm not convinced that the union members would actually have supported the strike call anyway as the changes to the pension system don't affect current employees anyway.

According to the Unite Union web site:

"A total of 1946 Unite members voted for strike action with 1108 voting against."

which is almost a 2/3rds majority in favour of strike action.

 

[Keitht]

According to the Unite Union web site:

"A total of 1946 Unite members voted for strike action with 1108 voting against."

which is almost a 2/3rds majority in favour of strike action.

I'm not questioning the numbers in the vote, but the response would depend on the actual information given to members prior to that vote. If the membership was led to believe that the changes to the pension scheme would directly affect them then I would certainly expect a large vote in support of the union. I don't know if that is the situation here, but I have been around long enough to know that the case for and against an argument are not always given equal airing
I was also speaking to somebody recently regarding the Royal Mail strikes late last year, and although they voted for strike action they did so only to put pressure on the management and didn't actually go on strike.
That uncertainty about attendance numbers at airports would of course have a much more severe impact. If BAA didn't know how many would turn up for work they might well be forced to close the airport anyway.

 

[alanmj]

I'm not questioning the numbers in the vote, but the response would depend on the actual information given to members prior to that vote. If the membership was led to believe that the changes to the pension scheme would directly affect them then I would certainly expect a large vote in support of the union. I don't know if that is the situation here, but I have been around long enough to know that the case for and against an argument are not always given equal airing

Again, the Unite Union web site gives - I think as an outsider - rather complete information about the rationale for the strike, which is the closure of the final salary pension plan to newcomers. So whatever one might think of the reasons for union action, in this case it certainly is one where the union members are not thinking of themselves, as they are already within the final salary pension plan, but of the rights of future members.

I was also speaking to somebody recently regarding the Royal Mail strikes late last year, and although they voted for strike action they did so only to put pressure on the management and didn't actually go on strike.

May be so, as I do think that Unite would lose ANY public support it has were it to close 7 airports and inconvenience many thousands of people worldwide, as the repercussions would be global.

That uncertainty about attendance numbers at airports would of course have a much more severe impact. If BAA didn't know how many would turn up for work they might well be forced to close the airport anyway.

BAA had stated that management would be used to ensure security was not breached during the strike, as if it was then the airports would be closed for DAYS to re-establish security, but that all 7 airports would be closed.

On an aside, Richard Branson is taking a very strong stance with regard to possible strike action by Unite members at Virgin scheduled for the 9th and 10th and 16th and 17th January, telling them to go to BA if they want large wage rises...

 

[Keitht]

Certainly 'interesting times' for those involved in the airline industry and associated areas. I do think we (you & I) need to be careful that we stay within the guidelines for discussion on the boards. I don't personally think we have overstepped them so far.
If the union membership is truly supportive of forcing the company to continue with a final salary scheme for new members it seems like turkeys voting for Christmas or Thanksgiving. Most commentators agree that final salary schemes, as they are currently formulated, are unsustainable. The potential longer term result of forcing companies to keep them open is the failure of the entire scheme due to lack of funds. Don't get me wrong, I would love to go to a new job with such a pension structure, but I don't think it likely.

 

[alanmj]

Certainly 'interesting times' for those involved in the airline industry and associated areas. I do think we (you & I) need to be careful that we stay within the guidelines for discussion on the boards. I don't personally think we have overstepped them so far.

I agree...

If the union membership is truly supportive of forcing the company to continue with a final salary scheme for new members it seems like turkeys voting for Christmas or Thanksgiving. Most commentators agree that final salary schemes, as they are currently formulated, are unsustainable. The potential longer term result of forcing companies to keep them open is the failure of the entire scheme due to lack of funds. Don't get me wrong, I would love to go to a new job with such a pension structure, but I don't think it likely.

I'm not an economist so not sure what the concerns are. Surely if these plans are expensive, then the employee has to contribute more, rather than ditching them for any other form of pension plan.

Just a comment that these concerns haven't yet been raised in Canada, as far as I'm aware. Certainly the Federal Government is certainly not even discussing changing its final salary pension plan (1/50th per year of service of the average of the last 5 years of service) in any way at all.

 

[Keitht]

Final salary pensions schemes are all but dead to new employees in the UK. A few years ago there were huge deficits in schemes and companies did panic rather at that time. The shortfalls have been largely rectified, but the concern remains that schemes will not be able to support the number of pensioners in the future.
Suggesting to current contributors that they will have to increase contributions, although totally logical, will in all probability also be met with great resistance in some quarters.

 

[Keitht]

I'm delighted to be able to report that the rest of the proposed strikes have also been called off. Now only the normal levels of chaos will be experienced at London Heathrow.