http://www.hln.be/hln/cch/det/art_135386.html
Both CRL and LGG will be closed today (Thursday 27/10) from 05h00 a.m. till 08h00 a.m., because the unions want ... ach, there's no real demand. There's a dispute about the security & control, now done by a private company.
The only way out seems to be a strike from 5 to 8. We all agree, don't we: at 08h01, the problem will be solved. For sure.
On Friday, CRL will probably be closed the whole day because of the national strike.
(I'm still looking for an English text about Thursday's strike)
CRL = Charleroi
LGG = Bierset / Liège
How to chase away passengers and investors?
Moderator: Latest news team
RYR has nothing to do with the reason for the strike, but they're the first (and only) victim. O'Leary prefers regional airports because they don't strike that much.
Those who went on strike this morning are playing with the jobs from all airport and airline workers. Not themselves of course, because they are "protected employees" as trade union delegates.
Those who went on strike this morning are playing with the jobs from all airport and airline workers. Not themselves of course, because they are "protected employees" as trade union delegates.
I understand your concern, and I am not in favour of a strike that hase negative repercutions for any other party. Nonetheless, I also have a certain sympathy as a strike is one of these last resort instruments for employees to put some pressure on their employers. If both parties (both parties eej!)would be a little more communicative and willing to make trade-offs, this kind of strike wouldn't be necessary.LX-LGX wrote:RYR has nothing to do with the reason for the strike, but they're the first (and only) victim.
Those who went on strike this morning are playing with the jobs from all airport and airline workers. .
bAIR
You cannot have "a certain sympathy for a strike": it is a yes or a no. It's like being pregnant: you are, or you are not.
If you are in favour of this morning's strike, you agree that it is allowed for the trade unions that Ryanair, who has nothing to do with this dispute, is used as hostage.
There's no excuse: no "yes but", no "I agree but": a plain NO WAY.
If you are in favour of this morning's strike, you agree that it is allowed for the trade unions that Ryanair, who has nothing to do with this dispute, is used as hostage.
There's no excuse: no "yes but", no "I agree but": a plain NO WAY.
Sorry LX-LXG but I don't agree with you!
What I mean is that a strike has both positive and negative repercutions. And my opinion is that whether you're in favour or not of such strikes, everybody should have at least the dignity to recognise those advantages and disadvantages and not be biased or blinded by his own opinion.
What I mean is that a strike has both positive and negative repercutions. And my opinion is that whether you're in favour or not of such strikes, everybody should have at least the dignity to recognise those advantages and disadvantages and not be biased or blinded by his own opinion.
In the currnt situation, workers are striking, not against their employer who has no part in the conflict, but against the Government. By doing so, they have chosen the wrong target and the employers (and the users) are taken as hostage in a conflict that has nothing to do with them.
André
ex Sabena #26567
ex Sabena #26567
Ryanair had to cancel two flights. Will the unions pay for the crew salaries? Will the unions pay for the fuel for the empty legs? For the rebooking costs? The fact that RYR had to cancel 2 flights means the strike has not been advised "way in advance" (the flights would not have been scheduled then, like on Christmans eve).teddybAIR wrote:In a strike, customers of the organisation are always a victim and this strike has been anounced way in advance. Anyway, as I said before, I agree that it isn't fair that those customers are hit by the strike, but that's just my hummble opinion
"Hostage", according to wikipedia.org: A hostage is a person (sometimes another entity) which is held by a captor in order to compel another party to act or refrain from acting in a particular way.
So forget about "victims": the right word is "hostage".
Professionaly I am in close contact with a lot of entrepreneurs and employers. A majority of them is really thinking about closing down their business or relocate it abroad due to the unrealistic way the unions are acting.
Not only with respect to the retirement topic, but also with respect to the labour costs, the representation of unions in small businesses, "tijdskrediet", blocking traffic roads during strikes .....
Moreover it is nearly impossible to sue to claim damages the unions because they officially don't even exist ....
Keep on going that way my dear union friends. Within some years you won't have any employees to support your strikes, because there are no employers left ...
Not only with respect to the retirement topic, but also with respect to the labour costs, the representation of unions in small businesses, "tijdskrediet", blocking traffic roads during strikes .....
Moreover it is nearly impossible to sue to claim damages the unions because they officially don't even exist ....
Keep on going that way my dear union friends. Within some years you won't have any employees to support your strikes, because there are no employers left ...
If ryanair would really have wanted to bring those passengers to their end destination, they would have let the plane depart from another airport. The reality is that I have to admit that ryanair is hit by this strike. Nevertheless, if ryanair would be determined to bring these passengers to their end-destination, they would have done it. The truth is: Ryanair is a LCC and they implicitly made the decision to cancel the flights and strand those passengers. Why? Because of their high loadfactors, they cannot transfer passengers to other flights and because it would simply cost them too much and this is not in line with their line of conduct.
I admit, the fact that Ryanair is hit by this strike is not fair. Nevertheless, in the businessworld flexibility, agility and the ability to adapt to new situations are key to survive...ryanair didn't succeed. but hey, ryanair stands for budget flying, not for service, so when you buy a cheap ryanair ticket and a strike occurs, take precautions!
I admit, the fact that Ryanair is hit by this strike is not fair. Nevertheless, in the businessworld flexibility, agility and the ability to adapt to new situations are key to survive...ryanair didn't succeed. but hey, ryanair stands for budget flying, not for service, so when you buy a cheap ryanair ticket and a strike occurs, take precautions!
André,
Belgian trade unions legally don't exist as they don't have a "rechtspersoonlijkheid" (to be translated as "legal existence" or something like that).
Unions therefore cannot be held responsible as organisation: if someone want to sue them for indemnity or compensation, he has to take ALL MEMBERS to court.
Belgian trade unions legally don't exist as they don't have a "rechtspersoonlijkheid" (to be translated as "legal existence" or something like that).
Unions therefore cannot be held responsible as organisation: if someone want to sue them for indemnity or compensation, he has to take ALL MEMBERS to court.
Stop complaining about Ryanair and to say all that( ''Poor Ryanair!! Who is going to pay for the money they are losing!'') Come on... That's completely stupid this comapny costs more at Charleroi that any other company!
I f you were (Luxair and the others ultra liberal, ultra business minded) abused and exploited by Ryanair , I am sure you wouldn't claim all this lies!
And by the way , stop argue about road blocking and other stupidity! almost none have been blocked , it was AGAIN a ''mediapollution'' predicting the worst things!
I completely agree with Teddybair about Ryanair and the right of strike, for the others just wonder how many times you took advantage of such strikes without risking anything!
sad story...
I f you were (Luxair and the others ultra liberal, ultra business minded) abused and exploited by Ryanair , I am sure you wouldn't claim all this lies!
And by the way , stop argue about road blocking and other stupidity! almost none have been blocked , it was AGAIN a ''mediapollution'' predicting the worst things!
I completely agree with Teddybair about Ryanair and the right of strike, for the others just wonder how many times you took advantage of such strikes without risking anything!
sad story...
pit600f, my salary is paid by the passengers, not by the unions. I indeed object tot the fact that RYR-passengers were taken hostage in a social dispute. If you call this ultra-liberal, it only proofs how far to the left you are situated.
and yes, I'm indeed business minded, because airline business is a commercial setup.
talking about Friday's strike: the only reason why the bravehearts of the union have not blocked the airport is because the Flemish travel agents had a court order: 6.500 euro's for every illegal action at the airport (be it parking, dep hall, arr hall, check-in or gate) (please note: the judge allowed all workers to strike = not to work).
and yes, I'm indeed business minded, because airline business is a commercial setup.
talking about Friday's strike: the only reason why the bravehearts of the union have not blocked the airport is because the Flemish travel agents had a court order: 6.500 euro's for every illegal action at the airport (be it parking, dep hall, arr hall, check-in or gate) (please note: the judge allowed all workers to strike = not to work).
Indeed, but the government wants to change this if I'm not mistaken, and (off-course) the unions are against this ...LX-LGX wrote:Belgian trade unions legally don't exist as they don't have a "rechtspersoonlijkheid" (to be translated as "legal existence" or something like that).
In my opinion (keep in mind I'm a 'vakbondsafgevaardigde' for ACV), this must be changed as fast as possible because they now think they can do what they want without being sued ...
Bottie, we know this country, don't we? Unions and governement are too close, the government will never force the unions to accept a legal existence. What happened few weeks ago, is that one minister said he was going to demand for legal existence. If you would ask mr Daems today what he has done meanwhile, you will get a "euh, yep, still working on it I think". It was just "profileringsdrang", to be translated as "image building in the media on very short notice, hoping people will forget few weeks later what I say today".
The unions don't want legal existence, because they will then face huge claims: without legal existence for the unions, the unions cannot be hold responsable for damage, caused by their protesters: those m/f are personnaly responsible for claims. Which brings me back to the topic: that's why the court order from the V.V.R. - Flemish Travel Agents Association - worked: the claim of 6.500 euro's was against each individual protester at BRU. Which means: if Bottie Luchtzak imposes a passenger to check in, and one of the three V.V.R.-bailers in/around the airport happens to be around, Bottie himself will have to pay the 6.500 euro's. If Bottie has two friends with him, it's 19.500 euro's in total. With legal existence for the unions, Bottie can ask mr Cortebeeck to pay this from the trade unions's secret KBLux account.
That's also because it was so quite on the streets yesterday: there were some one hundred court orders, all with a huge claim against every single person who blocked off a company, who set up a road block, who would do something else then simply going on strike.
The unions used a juridical tric to avoid claims: they're refusing legal existence. The employers now found a legal way to counter that. The Flemish travel agents have done it for the departure hall: one or other cargo handler will do it next time for Brucargo.
The unions don't want legal existence, because they will then face huge claims: without legal existence for the unions, the unions cannot be hold responsable for damage, caused by their protesters: those m/f are personnaly responsible for claims. Which brings me back to the topic: that's why the court order from the V.V.R. - Flemish Travel Agents Association - worked: the claim of 6.500 euro's was against each individual protester at BRU. Which means: if Bottie Luchtzak imposes a passenger to check in, and one of the three V.V.R.-bailers in/around the airport happens to be around, Bottie himself will have to pay the 6.500 euro's. If Bottie has two friends with him, it's 19.500 euro's in total. With legal existence for the unions, Bottie can ask mr Cortebeeck to pay this from the trade unions's secret KBLux account.
That's also because it was so quite on the streets yesterday: there were some one hundred court orders, all with a huge claim against every single person who blocked off a company, who set up a road block, who would do something else then simply going on strike.
The unions used a juridical tric to avoid claims: they're refusing legal existence. The employers now found a legal way to counter that. The Flemish travel agents have done it for the departure hall: one or other cargo handler will do it next time for Brucargo.
Lx-LGX, what are you against? the right of strike or the blocking of road and so on...
Because that's not clear, i don't get it.
I will also be paid by the passengers you know ( i am pilot as you maybe) ,I am not blue neither red! So not so left as you said! I leave in a part of belgium where Socialist (the left part as you said) are just throwing public money by the window! So stop saying I am ''sooo left'' but I am just trying to understand the fear of millions of people.
It's importnat to have groups of people who are not afraid to defend our interests ,otherwise excuse me but it's back to Zola and Germinal where you have to work for the only one Capital.
That's all I wanted to say , just stop discrediting all the requirements of strikers!
Because that's not clear, i don't get it.
I will also be paid by the passengers you know ( i am pilot as you maybe) ,I am not blue neither red! So not so left as you said! I leave in a part of belgium where Socialist (the left part as you said) are just throwing public money by the window! So stop saying I am ''sooo left'' but I am just trying to understand the fear of millions of people.
It's importnat to have groups of people who are not afraid to defend our interests ,otherwise excuse me but it's back to Zola and Germinal where you have to work for the only one Capital.
That's all I wanted to say , just stop discrediting all the requirements of strikers!
This is what I've said:
- there is a right to strike = to stop working
- there is also a right to work
- strikers don't have the right to obstruct people who don't want to strike
- road blocks are illegal and scandalous, and it's about time judges confirm this
- at every wildcat strike in our branch, passengers are taken as hostage.
If you call this ultra liberal, we have a different opinion about the Belgian political spectrum.
- there is a right to strike = to stop working
- there is also a right to work
- strikers don't have the right to obstruct people who don't want to strike
- road blocks are illegal and scandalous, and it's about time judges confirm this
- at every wildcat strike in our branch, passengers are taken as hostage.
If you call this ultra liberal, we have a different opinion about the Belgian political spectrum.