Printable View
British Airways, said on Tuesday it had asked its staff to work for free as part of the company's battle for "survival;" in tough market conditions.
Reuters
I can see asking employees to consider unpaid leave, but working for free, seems a bit much to me.
What do you think?
But is it really that different than us taking a 10% paycut? At least for BA employees it's a temporary (one-time) loss of income. Our cut is not. Many of us at AA are still trying to get back to our pre-cut (2004) pay.
I think the airline industry could use this on some level.
I know many folks who are just here for the flight benefits. That is it. They do not need the money at all, it is just a bonus.
My wife makes good money so if they came out with an outstanding flight benefits package, I would work for less or even for free.
It wouldn't work for everyone but many would go for it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Migflanker @ Jun 18 2009, 01:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Britski might confirm, but I have a feeling this is a bit of bs. I mean at CX we are essentially working for free at the moment - I owe them a weeks salary that gets taken out over 6 months and i get a week off at anytime for it. My boss loses two weeks pay, my other boss 3 weeks.Quote:
British Airways, said on Tuesday it had asked its staff to work for free as part of the company's battle for "survival;" in tough market conditions.
Reuters
I can see asking employees to consider unpaid leave, but working for free, seems a bit much to me.
What do you think?[/b]
I dare say the BA scheme is similar, yet the media decided to run with the "work for free" line and not expand on the details.
That's my hunch, anyways.
The most amusing thing is work is all that my boss has going for him. He PLEADED with HR to be allowed to come to work for the 3 unpaid weeks, and they refused haha
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Migflanker @ Jun 17 2009, 04:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Quote:
British Airways, said on Tuesday it had asked its staff to work for free as part of the company's battle for "survival;" in tough market conditions.
Reuters
I can see asking employees to consider unpaid leave, but working for free, seems a bit much to me.
What do you think?[/b]
Essentially, if you have a mortgage and other commitments to meet each month, I cannot see how a person can be expected to work for free.
Can't think of any other sector where employers would possibly think up such an idea.
How fair would the scheme be if someone who could possibly afford to work for free for any given period goes up against a colleague who simply can't?
I would possibly consider a day a month initially, providing the Unions have evidence that all hierarchy took the same line.
It then begs the question, should employees have a say in what is done with the ' extra ' funds it has gained from employees ...
do they go down the road of employee ownership ... oh - deja vu ... we did that. Went into chapter 11 and wonder if I
will ever raise a $1 for my share certificate on Ebay ... ho hum
But the issue was that it is a choice.
We started a program where senior executives and captains take 4 weeks unpaid leave, managers and fos take 3 weeks, supervisors 2 weeks, and ground staff 1 week. It is taken out over a 6 month period. We are not given a choice if we want to work for free or take the leave, the leave must be taken at some stage.
For someone like my boss who has maxed out his retirement and has money in the bank, it is a tax bonus to work for free for a month so he wants the money taken out straight away rather than over 6 months.
I dare say this is why people are given choice... at BA you can take the leave and not be paid, or work and not be paid. I don't think it is fair to say being "forced to work for free" - this is lying by omission
IT'S ALL TRUE !!! .... well not exactly all ... well actually it is all true .. it's just the slant thats been put on it that is wrong.
Nick is right to the effect that BA has offered staff the chance to take unpaid leave ( between 1 week and several months ) and to have that salary duducted over a 3 or 6 month period. Sounds similar to the Cathay scheme although BA's is optional http://www.nonrev.net/forums/style_e...R#>/mellow.gif ( but remember they know where we live http://www.nonrev.net/forums/style_e...#>/biggrin.gif ) .. not too sure from nicks comments as to whether the Cathay scheme is optional or mandatory.
During the discussions about the terms of the scheme a number of people asked if they could take the leave and still come into work ( must be relatives of Nicks boss http://www.nonrev.net/forums/style_e...IR#>/laugh.gif ) so that choice was added to the options but of course the press jumped upon the story and interpreted it to their own ends.
There do seem to be quite a few opting for the 'work for free' option ... I guess they see that as a better option than being banished to the garden shed ( or garage ) for days on end by the other 'alf http://www.nonrev.net/forums/style_e...#>/biggrin.gif
Personally having looked at my payslip I thought I was already working for free !!! http://www.nonrev.net/forums/style_e...IR#>/laugh.gif
I don't think that BA will be the last carrier to indtroduce this sorts of measures ... unfortunately most of the world doesn't have that nice soft bed called Chapter 11 to fall into when they are ailing and can't pay the bills.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BRITSKI99 @ Jun 23 2009, 05:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>Chapter 11 did not help Pan Am, it possibly prolonged TWA's life. We're given to understand from the prooganda machine that CO became very strong after exiting Chapter 11 ..... BA doesn't have the option of a Chapter 11 fall back, but BA is BA and these are tough times, it will pull through.Quote:
I don't think that BA will be the last carrier to indtroduce this sorts of measures ... unfortunately most of the world doesn't have that nice soft bed called Chapter 11 to fall into when they are ailing and can't pay the bills.[/b]
As an ex Pan Am, I don't think too far ahead http://www.nonrev.net/forums/style_e...DIR#>/wink.gif
One thing is for sure, the fare sale BA had last month resulted in revenue tickets being cheaper than a ZED http://www.nonrev.net/forums/style_e...IR#>/smile.gif
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BRITSKI99 @ Jun 24 2009, 02:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>May as well have been mandatory. I don't think it was but it was implied. High nineties per cent took it up... I think Canadians are excluded due to local laws. How's that for luck, eh? Ours comes out over 6months, and we have a year and a half to take the time off. They did this during SARS and it was paid back to the staff but who knows.Quote:
Nick is right to the effect that BA has offered staff the chance to take unpaid leave ( between 1 week and several months ) and to have that salary duducted over a 3 or 6 month period. Sounds similar to the Cathay scheme although BA's is optional http://www.nonrev.net/forums/style_e...R#>/mellow.gif ( but remember they know where we live http://www.nonrev.net/forums/style_e...#>/biggrin.gif ) .. not too sure from nicks comments as to whether the Cathay scheme is optional or mandatory.[/b]
I've been there nearly 2 years, the first year massive profit share yeah we have heaps of money, now 2nd year and we are taking concessions. Such is the nature of the beast.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BRITSKI99 @ Jun 24 2009, 02:14 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>True that. What a protectionist luxury....Quote:
I don't think that BA will be the last carrier to indtroduce this sorts of measures ... unfortunately most of the world doesn't have that nice soft bed called Chapter 11 to fall into when they are ailing and can't pay the bills.[/b]