Poll: BBC strike threat

[JIst00]

Stop biting for a minute and think about this.

The proposed strike is over pension cuts. The pension cuts dont affect management, just average Joe who works in accounting or whatever. So the workers have decided to strike.

Thats the basics more or less, right?

Now, when, for example, the airlines stike, they stike in the summer, because a stike then will cause the biggest uproar as it will affect more people and create bad publicity, garnering the cause more attention. A effective tactic.

Now in media, its's not quite so easy, so, to cause uproar, and bad publicity they have decided to pick a time when the moast bad publicity for the BBC will occur, DURING A POLICTICAL BROADCAST. This make the BBC to look like they are censoring etc, which, as mentioned above, is against their mandate. So the BBC looks bad. Bingo, perfect time to strike.

This isnt the shot-callers at the BBC deliberatly trying to censor a political speech, NOT AT ALL. This is the workers creating a problem for the shot-callers, and giving them some leverage. The BBC doesnt want the bad press, but they will egt it unless they back down.

It's not that difficult to grasp really, so repeating endlessly that the BBC are censoring a political speech is missing the entire point of the strike. It's not about censoring the speech, that is what gives the stikers leverage. The affected political party will be putting pressure on the shot-callers to back down, the bad press adds more pressure...

They have the right to strike, and tey should use it.

 

[Rylingo]

The BBC executives need to all be fired and replaced. Some of them earn over a million pounds by doing several overlapping jobs. For tax purposes, naturally.

First create a law permitting them to be fired with no redundancy pay. Those at the top can survive on their millions. Actually id do the same on the banks who had to be bailed out.

Ah, but where do you draw the financial line at which someone can be fired without redundancy pay? If you're not careful, then you leave a loophole for all other public sector jobs to be dumped without pay.

But while I can't remember the specifics the "Head of Journalism" at the BBC (salary 200k+) is also "Head of All News" (salary 200k+) and "Head of Newsrooms" (salary 100k+) should probably be alright even without the government-prepared £million pension pot.

Make the law specifically controlled by a single individual and expire at the end of the day. Using the money saved for each you could hire 40 odd people directly off the dole queue for lower paid jobs. Maybe new teachers to reduce class size. Maybe some new nurses. Either way its one person onto the dole queue and 40 odd off it which is better again. There is enough middle management in the BBC to take the loss of the higher management.
Mind you this would never happen.

(slightly off-topic, but) Do you want to know the worst thing about the banks? Part of the new coalition agreement was a law separating the investment banking (what got us in this mess) and capital banking sectors of banks, to hopefully prevent such happening again.
After the Treasury re-shuffle, that plan's been scrapped because the government got some new advisors...from the investment banking sector.

That is f***ing ridiculous.

 

[TehIrishSoap]

If They Strike, Will They Go Off-Air? Stupid Question I Know, But I'm Curious!

 

[Plurralbles]

you pay for them, yous hould have teh right to fire them.

 

[Rubashov]

EDIT: I should clarify. My objection to the strike is that they are striking deliberately to prevent one specific political party giving its argument. If they were blanketing ALL political party speeches I wouldnt mind so much.

It makes sense for the workers to strike during a major party conference; that's the time their skills are most in demand. Thus, striking at such a time will be more likely to result in management agreeing to their terms.

I take a very grim view of any government that bans strikes...for any purpose.

Stop biting for a minute and think about this.

The proposed strike is over pension cuts. The pension cuts dont affect management, just average Joe who works in accounting or whatever. So the workers have decided to strike.

Thats the basics more or less, right?

Now, when, for example, the airlines stike, they stike in the summer, because a stike then will cause the biggest uproar as it will affect more people and create bad publicity, garnering the cause more attention. A effective tactic.

Now in media, its's not quite so easy, so, to cause uproar, and bad publicity they have decided to pick a time when the moast bad publicity for the BBC will occur, DURING A POLICTICAL BROADCAST. This make the BBC to look like they are censoring etc, which, as mentioned above, is against their mandate. So the BBC looks bad. Bingo, perfect time to strike.

This isnt the shot-callers at the BBC deliberatly trying to censor a political speech, NOT AT ALL. This is the workers creating a problem for the shot-callers, and giving them some leverage. The BBC doesnt want the bad press, but they will egt it unless they back down.

It's not that difficult to grasp really, so repeating endlessly that the BBC are censoring a political speech is missing the entire point of the strike. It's not about censoring the speech, that is what gives the stikers leverage. The affected political party will be putting pressure on the shot-callers to back down, the bad press adds more pressure...

They have the right to strike, and tey should use it.

Also, this.

 

[Hawgh]

Of course they have the right to strike. The strike is an accepted aspect of payment negotiations, I don't see how this particular profession should be exempt from the rights that literally every working member of the populace is entitled to.

 

[Talshere]

snip

snip

But this STILL isnt taking into account the fact they are preventing only ONE political speech. A blanket strike on all the political speeches gives the effect you have described. To blanket only ONE is deliberate censoring, and I maintain, should not be allowed.

 

[Rubashov]

But this STILL isnt taking into account the fact they are preventing only ONE political speech. A blanket strike on all the political speeches gives the effect you have described. To blanket only ONE is deliberate censoring, and I maintain, should not be allowed.

Read Jlst00's post again. Striking during the Conservative conference makes the BBC LOOK like it's censoring. The workers (quite reasonably) want to compel the BBC to refrain from screwing with their pensions. If they strike during a political speech, it looks (from the outside) like the BBC is censoring said political speech. This puts pressure on the BBC to agree to the workers' terms because the BBC doesn't want to look like it's censoring the Conservatives.

 

[mew4ever23]

Everyone should be allowed to strike. That said, this strike, if indeed it is to stifle the voice of a political party, in particular should not be allowed, as it violates the company's principals. If the BBC workers walk, Bam, the BBC just became political, because they're refusing to cover political party X's speech.

Now, If they're threatening to strike for some other reason that has nothing to do with with the speech, and turns out to be an unhappy co-incidence that they will not be covering a political parties speech, that's quite alright.

 

[Spaghetti]

Just because it's employees of the BBC, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to strike, particularly with an important issue such as pensions.
The reason they chose the Tory's instead of all the parties, is because they are the party in power, a strike during their confrence will have the greatest impact. Also, because the BBC is technicaly a Quango and therefore a technically a state run company, the party in power (The Tory Party) will have some (if minor) role to play in how the BBC is run. The striking employees are sending just as much a message to the Conservatives as they are to BBC bosses.

-snip-

I'd agree, but its just technicians and journalists striking, not the whole BBC organisation. The BBC can't really cover a party confrence without technicians and journalists which is why it's shutting down during the confrence.

 

[Talshere]

But this STILL isnt taking into account the fact they are preventing only ONE political speech. A blanket strike on all the political speeches gives the effect you have described. To blanket only ONE is deliberate censoring, and I maintain, should not be allowed.

Read Jlst00's post again. Striking during the Conservative conference makes the BBC LOOK like it's censoring. The workers (quite reasonably) want to compel the BBC to refrain from screwing with their pensions. If they strike during a political speech, it looks (from the outside) like the BBC is censoring said political speech. This puts pressure on the BBC to agree to the workers' terms because the BBC doesn't want to look like it's censoring the Conservatives.

And a threat is all well and good so long as the management cave and it remains a threat. If they go through with it, the BBC loses it mandate, and there is no real reason to fund them any more. So they ALL lose their pensions AND jobs. Its a catch 22.

I don't support the cutting of their pensions if the upper management aren't taking a similar hit, a flat % hit across all jobs is the fair way to do it. But I cannot support censoring such as they are planning. Ever.

 

[ThePantomimeThief]

Read Jlst00's post again. Striking during the Conservative conference makes the BBC LOOK like it's censoring. The workers (quite reasonably) want to compel the BBC to refrain from screwing with their pensions. If they strike during a political speech, it looks (from the outside) like the BBC is censoring said political speech. This puts pressure on the BBC to agree to the workers' terms because the BBC doesn't want to look like it's censoring the Conservatives.

Exactly. It's a very clever move, and I think it may well work in the workers' favour. The upper echelons of the BBC are shit-scared of upsetting the government because of the future cutbacks that are likely to occur. Everyone knows how the Conservatives feel about the BBC, and most people know about the rumblings of 'deals' with BSkyB and the like, so it's a smart decision from those who want to strike. And completely justified, in my opinion.

 

[Rubashov]

I cannot support censoring such as they are planning. Ever.

There are two problems with that statement. First, the BBC isn't actually censoring anything. Second, "supporting" and "not banning" something are two very different things.

Exactly. It's a very clever move, and I think it may well work in the workers' favour. The upper echelons of the BBC are shit-scared of upsetting the government because of the future cutbacks that are likely to occur. Everyone knows how the Conservatives feel about the BBC, and most people know about the rumblings of 'deals' with BSkyB and the like, so it's a smart decision from those who want to strike. And completely justified, in my opinion.

Yep. Hell, it's what I'd do.

 

[Kheld]

I think those Left Wing scum should be lined up & shot.

Perhaps that will teach them dictating to us what we should be allowed to watch.

 

[Talshere]

I cannot support censoring such as they are planning. Ever.

There are two problems with that statement. First, the BBC isn't actually censoring anything. Second, "supporting" and "not banning" something are two very different things.

Exactly. It's a very clever move, and I think it may well work in the workers' favour. The upper echelons of the BBC are shit-scared of upsetting the government because of the future cutbacks that are likely to occur. Everyone knows how the Conservatives feel about the BBC, and most people know about the rumblings of 'deals' with BSkyB and the like, so it's a smart decision from those who want to strike. And completely justified, in my opinion.

Yep. Hell, it's what I'd do.

Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor

By failing to air that particular argument, its censorship. To specifically remove the speech justifying the payment cuts, for whatever the reason, is censorship. Theoretically this same issue would have occurred if they were blanketing the Labor speech, or again back to this ALL speeches, so why pick the one which is explaining the reason cuts had to be made. Its too targeted to merely be attacking the BBC heads. Its targeting the government and its cuts at the source. Which, again, is political censorship. A new twist on it granted, since its not the government censoring, but censorship none the less.


I have a new perspective, thanks to the contributions in this thread. Its a clever move. It is. But again, for the reason above, I cannot justify or back their actions.

 

[Rubashov]

I cannot support censoring such as they are planning. Ever.

There are two problems with that statement. First, the BBC isn't actually censoring anything. Second, "supporting" and "not banning" something are two very different things.

Exactly. It's a very clever move, and I think it may well work in the workers' favour. The upper echelons of the BBC are shit-scared of upsetting the government because of the future cutbacks that are likely to occur. Everyone knows how the Conservatives feel about the BBC, and most people know about the rumblings of 'deals' with BSkyB and the like, so it's a smart decision from those who want to strike. And completely justified, in my opinion.

Yep. Hell, it's what I'd do.

Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient to the government or media organizations as determined by a censor

By failing to air that particular argument, its censorship. To specifically remove the speech justifying the payment cuts, for whatever the reason, is censorship. Theoretically this same issue would have occurred if they were blanketing the Labor speech, or again back to this ALL speeches, so why pick the one which is explaining the reason cuts had to be made. Its too targeted to merely be attacking the BBC heads. Its targeting the government and its cuts at the source. Which, again, is political censorship. A new twist on it granted, since its not the government censoring, but censorship none the less.


I have a new perspective, thanks to the contributions in this thread. Its a clever move. It is. But again, for the reason above, I cannot justify or back their actions.

You are incorrect when you say the same issue would have come up if the workers struck during all conferences. If they did that, it wouldn't look like the BBC was favoring the other parties over the Conservatives. As for why they didn't pick Labour...first, they had to pick somebody; second, the Conservatives currently control the government (which the workers are essentially striking against); and third, people are more likely to buy the story that the BBC is censoring the Conservatives.