British Airways is in the news - again - with the announcement of yet more strikes to come... and this time, targeted at disrupting the Bank Holiday weekend. As if the BH isn't going to be bad enough what with the forecast of rain and predicted motorway congestion, now anyone who booked BA flights to whisk them off to sunnier climes has also lucked out. BA last announced massive strike plans back in December, to cover the Christmas period, causing massive panic among management and customers alike. The staff were set to strike over pay freezes, and working conditions. Airline bosses believed that the measures were unavoidable and essential to keep the business afloat. Having reported losses in early 2009 of £401 million, they felt that, seeing as most of their staff already earned almost twice as much as those working for Virgin, it made sense to keep pay as it was. The cabin crew disagreed, and 13,500 of them agreed to support the strike. Thankfully for the estimated one million passengers who may have found themselves living in an airport for the festive period, a high court injunction banned the strike - describing it as illegal - and business went on as normal. So people slowly began to forget, and book their BA flights once more. Until now.
Yes, the cabin crews have decided to implement not one but two strikes over the coming weekend, citing the removal of travel perks (discounted tickets) for those staff who staged a walk out back in March. They feel that this is punishment for participating in industrial action. Heaven forbid that anyone should be punished for causing discruption to flight schedules, financial loss for their employer, misery and stress for passengers and complications for their fellow workers. Anyway, that's what it's all about this time. British Airways had its injunction to block industrial action turned down last week, and refused an offer by Unite to call off the strike if perks were reinstated. Although they are planning further court action as I write, the situation for travellers this weekend seems bleaker than ever, with reduced, delayed and cancelled flights.
There is an ominous lack of public support for the strikes. BA are well known for their higher than industry average salaries, and complaining about them just seems, well, ungrateful perhaps? Public sector strikes, on the other hand, are able to glean more public support, and are generally accepted as more necessary. The strikes of public service staff back in July 2008 saw thousands of government workers backing up complaints of inadequate payrises. In March this year, they were awarded an extra 0.3% rise, making an overall 2.75% rise at all points, backdated to April 2008. People such as cleaners, librarians, teaching assistants, refuse collectors and social workers are generally seen as more "worthy" of a higher wage, possibly because they are paid less than those in the private sector. If British Airways are already paying top whack - senior cabin staff earn up to £56k a year, hardly peanuts - then if they haven't got the budget to pay more, what's next?
In any strike action, whether by public service or BA workers, who loses out most? The British public, that's who. But we can overlook not having our bins emptied for a few weeks, or the schools shutting for a day or two (which is a huge source of joy to our children anyway). We can't overlook having paid good money for a premium travel service and then being messed about, or having our holiday ruined by airline staff who are, in many people's opinions, taking the mickey. EasyJet are having a field day with their new ad - "Why trust BA? EasyJet has over 500,000 ways to help!" They, at least, are overjoyed with the strike news. As for everyone else, all we can do is keep our fingers crossed. And vow never to book a flight with BA ever again.
I'm just glad I'd already decided to spend the Bank Holiday enjoying the glorious UK wind and rain, as I sit stuck in endless traffic listening to screaming kids in the backseat. Bliss.
Wednesday 26 May 2010
Monday 17 May 2010
Jobs for the Girls?
I haven't been to the Jobcentre in years, but last time I was there was looking for admin/clerical work and was advised on a few relevant vacancies by staff. In Birmingham, Warwickshire and Shropshire last week, women looking for these types of jobs were also advised by Jobcentre staff - but rather than office work, were handed information about sex lines! The company recruiting, Faceclick, are offering up to £700 a week if you strip off, plonk your bits in front of a webcam and have sexually explicit chats with punters. Naturally, it all came as a bit of a shock to the jobseekers, especially with words such as "fetish", "Just 18 legal", and "role play" being mentioned in the adverts. Sky News HD readers leapt into the comments section, with predictable results - shock and horror from most women, smut from the men, and lots of blaming the government for the downfall in society due to advertising sex. Blah blah blah. There were one or two women boasting that they had similar jobs, and were the best they'd ever had, and a few more "liberated" people who couldn't see the harm in advertising adult jobs in the Jobcentre. There was also some concern about whether benefits would be affected if, say, someone was ungrateful enough to turn down such an opportunity. Prior to 2003, the Jobcentre wouldn't allow recruiters to advertise work within the sex industry. However, Ann Summers sucessfully took their case to court, and set a precedent for advertising such roles. The general consensus, though, is that selling lacy knickers and a few sex toys is worlds apart from working in the porn industry, and the DWP is taking advice about withdrawing their Faceclick adverts after pressure from Mediawatch- UK.
It's not the first time the Jobcentre has landed itself in hot water thanks to its policy on sexy jobs. In July last year, they carried an advert for a porn TV presenter - applicants needed to have good communication skills for explicit chat, and be happy to work semi-naked. This too sparked outrage, not surprisingly. In 2007, adverts were placed in Byker and Gateshead branches by a company specialising in dominatrices, looking to recruit escorts for £200 a shift. Due to complaints, the ad was withdrawn - but not until ten girls had happily signed up to the agency, tempted by the cash and the whips. And in 2006, there was a Scottish scandal over a gamut of lap dancing jobs being openly advertised as a viable job option.
Although the Jobcentre has an extremely liberal stance on advertising sex industry jobs, seeking women for X-rated work, they aren't as generous with "normal" job adverts. In February this year, a salon owner in Newcastle had her advert for a junor stylist refused by Jobcentre officials - for being discriminatory. She was told to drop the word 'junior' if she wanted her advert to be shown. It gets even more ridiculous. Back in January, a recruiter looking for a "reliable and hard-working" cleaner was told that her wording discriminated against unreliable people. The Jobcentre wouldn't comment on the conversation in question, but stressed that the advert was posted on its website afterwards.
The whole question of what is acceptable - and legal - for the Jobcentre to advertise is an interesting one. People seem to feel that, as a government-run agency, it should take a moral stance on the types of vacancies made available. Legally, however, the Jobcentre has had its hands tied after the victory of Ann Summers over the ban on sex industry adverts. The DWP have to be careful about discrimination, but the Jobcentre rules seem to be going a bit far. On the other hand, recruiters advertising elsewhere have to be careful how they word adverts, in order to avoid discrimination. Surely advertising for female sex workers is discriminatory, both towards women and men. Women because they are being handed the inappropriate adverts - and men? Men aren't offered the chance to apply! Yet there seems to be no legal standpoint over this, unlike sexual discrimination in other types of jobs. It will be interesting to see how this story develops.
Anyway, I'm off down the Jobcentre after lunch. £700 a week sounds ok to me...
It's not the first time the Jobcentre has landed itself in hot water thanks to its policy on sexy jobs. In July last year, they carried an advert for a porn TV presenter - applicants needed to have good communication skills for explicit chat, and be happy to work semi-naked. This too sparked outrage, not surprisingly. In 2007, adverts were placed in Byker and Gateshead branches by a company specialising in dominatrices, looking to recruit escorts for £200 a shift. Due to complaints, the ad was withdrawn - but not until ten girls had happily signed up to the agency, tempted by the cash and the whips. And in 2006, there was a Scottish scandal over a gamut of lap dancing jobs being openly advertised as a viable job option.
Although the Jobcentre has an extremely liberal stance on advertising sex industry jobs, seeking women for X-rated work, they aren't as generous with "normal" job adverts. In February this year, a salon owner in Newcastle had her advert for a junor stylist refused by Jobcentre officials - for being discriminatory. She was told to drop the word 'junior' if she wanted her advert to be shown. It gets even more ridiculous. Back in January, a recruiter looking for a "reliable and hard-working" cleaner was told that her wording discriminated against unreliable people. The Jobcentre wouldn't comment on the conversation in question, but stressed that the advert was posted on its website afterwards.
The whole question of what is acceptable - and legal - for the Jobcentre to advertise is an interesting one. People seem to feel that, as a government-run agency, it should take a moral stance on the types of vacancies made available. Legally, however, the Jobcentre has had its hands tied after the victory of Ann Summers over the ban on sex industry adverts. The DWP have to be careful about discrimination, but the Jobcentre rules seem to be going a bit far. On the other hand, recruiters advertising elsewhere have to be careful how they word adverts, in order to avoid discrimination. Surely advertising for female sex workers is discriminatory, both towards women and men. Women because they are being handed the inappropriate adverts - and men? Men aren't offered the chance to apply! Yet there seems to be no legal standpoint over this, unlike sexual discrimination in other types of jobs. It will be interesting to see how this story develops.
Anyway, I'm off down the Jobcentre after lunch. £700 a week sounds ok to me...
Wednesday 5 May 2010
Snog Marry Avoid
One day to go until the General Election, and you'd think that everyone has decided who they are going to vote for. It ain't necessarily so. The good old swing voters are still undecided, and last minute changes of mind (and heart) are possible over the next 34 hours. And it's women - again - who make up the majority of the swing voters, and who the three main parties are desperate to convince before time runs out.
During the 1997 General Election, pollsters coined a phrase for the typical woman swing voter - "Worcester Woman". These middle-income female swing voters living in a West Midlands marginal were part of a heavily targetted group whose votes were crucial. Helen Witherick, one of the so-called "Worcester Women", told The Independent three weeks before polling day that she would probably vote Conservative. Tracked down years later, she now admits that she changed her mind at the last minute, and voted for Blair. Out of ten Worcestershire women interviewed who were all Tories before Blair, none now say they will go back to voting Conservative. This group - which can be extended throughout Britain into other middle-income female rich areas - are still a force to be reckoned with when it comes to persuading them to make up their minds.
This Election has become known as the "Mumsnet Election", due to the massive influence that the members of the online forums will have on the outcome of the next government. Many are still undecided, and there is still time to sway them either way - according to Associate Editor Catherine Hanley, "Women don't tend to vote on party lines", rather, on policies affecting them and their families. Whilst women make up over 50% of the voting population, they only account for 19.5% of UK MPs, with only 4 on the Cabinet and 7 in Cameron's Shadow Cabinet. They are also more likely to wait later to decide and cast their vote and less likely than men to have an attachment to any party. This is why they are the key swing voters, especially in the marginals.
So how do we decide who to vote FOR? The Mail reported that polls in late 2009 showed that Labour were likely to win if only women vote... but they are also more likely to change their minds and vote Tory. Women aren't as impressed by David Cameron as much as men are, but at the same time are disappointed with Gordon Brown. In a recent Red Magazine poll, over half of the 2000 women questioned hadn't yet made up their minds. Women are cited as being swayed over policies on public services (NHS and schools), tax breaks for married couples and climate change, says Viv Groskop in The Mail. A survey from NetMums shows that a third of its members would vote for Cameron, with less than 1 in 5 going for Brown.
The party leaders have all launched a strike offensive in their quest to get women on side and on board this election. Whilst the usual party political broadcasts and Newsnight interviews have still been taking place, Cameron, Clegg and Brown (sounds like a comedy trio) have jumped on the media bandwagon big style to pimp their parties. Buffed and scrubbed, humble and engaging, dynamic (Brown excepted) and smooth... they have all been pasting their faces across TV, the press and the internet. Interviews with Piers Morgan, lunches and photo shoots with Glamour magazine, and interviews with Grazia have all pushed the three men into the spotlight with women voters, especially the 18-35 year group, many of whom will be voting for the first time.
So, how TO choose? With many of the polls suggesting a close-run first place, and the Tories pushing us to vote for them to avoid a hung parliament, for those of us as yet still undecided (yours truly included), what is going to make us settle for one of the three chirpy chappies asking us to support them? We can go for the policies most important to mums - extended nursery provision and flexible working; or most important to the Townswomens Guild - immigration, post office closures and mixed-sex hospital wards. Some of us will vote for the policies that we feel would work best for the country, some for those that seem best for us and our families, and some for the ones that might benefit our local communities.
There's a perfect solution to this dilemma facing us lady swing voters... Snog, marry, avoid. We tried this in the office today, and I won't tell you the results due to not wanting to swing the vote - all I can say is that nobody wanted to snog Gordon. Obviously, the results depend on who you'd rather have running the country - the man you want to play tonsil hockey with, or the one who'd make husband material. That's for you to decide. But go on and try it... you know you want to.
(For some sensible ideas to make your last-minute voting decision, try www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com or www.takethequiz.co.uk)
During the 1997 General Election, pollsters coined a phrase for the typical woman swing voter - "Worcester Woman". These middle-income female swing voters living in a West Midlands marginal were part of a heavily targetted group whose votes were crucial. Helen Witherick, one of the so-called "Worcester Women", told The Independent three weeks before polling day that she would probably vote Conservative. Tracked down years later, she now admits that she changed her mind at the last minute, and voted for Blair. Out of ten Worcestershire women interviewed who were all Tories before Blair, none now say they will go back to voting Conservative. This group - which can be extended throughout Britain into other middle-income female rich areas - are still a force to be reckoned with when it comes to persuading them to make up their minds.
This Election has become known as the "Mumsnet Election", due to the massive influence that the members of the online forums will have on the outcome of the next government. Many are still undecided, and there is still time to sway them either way - according to Associate Editor Catherine Hanley, "Women don't tend to vote on party lines", rather, on policies affecting them and their families. Whilst women make up over 50% of the voting population, they only account for 19.5% of UK MPs, with only 4 on the Cabinet and 7 in Cameron's Shadow Cabinet. They are also more likely to wait later to decide and cast their vote and less likely than men to have an attachment to any party. This is why they are the key swing voters, especially in the marginals.
So how do we decide who to vote FOR? The Mail reported that polls in late 2009 showed that Labour were likely to win if only women vote... but they are also more likely to change their minds and vote Tory. Women aren't as impressed by David Cameron as much as men are, but at the same time are disappointed with Gordon Brown. In a recent Red Magazine poll, over half of the 2000 women questioned hadn't yet made up their minds. Women are cited as being swayed over policies on public services (NHS and schools), tax breaks for married couples and climate change, says Viv Groskop in The Mail. A survey from NetMums shows that a third of its members would vote for Cameron, with less than 1 in 5 going for Brown.
The party leaders have all launched a strike offensive in their quest to get women on side and on board this election. Whilst the usual party political broadcasts and Newsnight interviews have still been taking place, Cameron, Clegg and Brown (sounds like a comedy trio) have jumped on the media bandwagon big style to pimp their parties. Buffed and scrubbed, humble and engaging, dynamic (Brown excepted) and smooth... they have all been pasting their faces across TV, the press and the internet. Interviews with Piers Morgan, lunches and photo shoots with Glamour magazine, and interviews with Grazia have all pushed the three men into the spotlight with women voters, especially the 18-35 year group, many of whom will be voting for the first time.
So, how TO choose? With many of the polls suggesting a close-run first place, and the Tories pushing us to vote for them to avoid a hung parliament, for those of us as yet still undecided (yours truly included), what is going to make us settle for one of the three chirpy chappies asking us to support them? We can go for the policies most important to mums - extended nursery provision and flexible working; or most important to the Townswomens Guild - immigration, post office closures and mixed-sex hospital wards. Some of us will vote for the policies that we feel would work best for the country, some for those that seem best for us and our families, and some for the ones that might benefit our local communities.
There's a perfect solution to this dilemma facing us lady swing voters... Snog, marry, avoid. We tried this in the office today, and I won't tell you the results due to not wanting to swing the vote - all I can say is that nobody wanted to snog Gordon. Obviously, the results depend on who you'd rather have running the country - the man you want to play tonsil hockey with, or the one who'd make husband material. That's for you to decide. But go on and try it... you know you want to.
(For some sensible ideas to make your last-minute voting decision, try www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com or www.takethequiz.co.uk)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
