IS
Except in News and the Nations where two thirds of staff were on strike, and the Engish regions where over half were out.
In the regions the support was higher. It's very easy for someone to cross the picket line at TV Centre or any of the big BBC centres, at a local radio station or regional TV news production centre everyone knows each other and there's a very diffrent picket line scenario.
At least one regional centre put out just 1 TV bulletin on Monday which was produced by as little as 2 or 3 members of management... and it showed.
Dan posted:
Dunedin posted:
I would like to think that fewer people will strike next week....they were in the minority last week after all.
Except in News and the Nations where two thirds of staff were on strike, and the Engish regions where over half were out.
In the regions the support was higher. It's very easy for someone to cross the picket line at TV Centre or any of the big BBC centres, at a local radio station or regional TV news production centre everyone knows each other and there's a very diffrent picket line scenario.
At least one regional centre put out just 1 TV bulletin on Monday which was produced by as little as 2 or 3 members of management... and it showed.
EQ
BBC suspend 48-hour strike action
The planned 48-hour strike by BBC staff next week has been suspended after 20 hours of talks between the corporation and unions.
The two parties held talks throughout the night at industrial tribunal ACAS.
The unions said the BBC had made significant concessions over privatisation, but had not yet addressed fears over job losses.
The strike had been due to take place on 31 May and 1 June. The unions will meet on Tuesday to discuss the issue.
The planned 48-hour strike by BBC staff next week has been suspended after 20 hours of talks between the corporation and unions.
The two parties held talks throughout the night at industrial tribunal ACAS.
The unions said the BBC had made significant concessions over privatisation, but had not yet addressed fears over job losses.
The strike had been due to take place on 31 May and 1 June. The unions will meet on Tuesday to discuss the issue.
UB
That's entirely untrue. The joint unions are not giving any kind of recommendation either way, and are letting the representatives of the unions - from the BBC chapels - decide what to do on Tuesday. I don't know what you got your 'apparently' from, but it's rubbish.
News24 posted:
Apparently the Unions have recommended that workers do not accept the BBC's current offer, however strikes next week called off to allow more time for lengthly negotiation.
That's entirely untrue. The joint unions are not giving any kind of recommendation either way, and are letting the representatives of the unions - from the BBC chapels - decide what to do on Tuesday. I don't know what you got your 'apparently' from, but it's rubbish.
UB
From Media Guardian
Quote:
10.45am: The BBC have offered a one year moratorium on compulsory redundancies as part of peace talks with unions. More soon...
From Media Guardian
MA
Interesting to note what an effective weapon the one day strike was. I gather management were stunned by the strength of support for the strike particularly in News. There were also horrified by the shoddy service they provided on Monday and senior managers were heard slagging off the stand in presenters as dire, but the best we could get. From what they were saying I don't think they want to employ them much in the future.
The BBC has not ballooned to a staggering size. Over the last 10 years it has been cut and cut with many parts of the infrastructure sold off. Even the buildings are not now owned by the BBC but by the diabolical Land Securities Trillium. This bit of privatization means that if you want a light fitting changed you need to ring up a centre 15 miles away who the charge the £70 for the pleasure. And don't forget how many times LST have taken the BBC off the air with it's shoddy work. NB If you want to test the emergency back up generators, please fill them with diesel first.
The BBC is over staffed with management. Part of the problem is they have cut the operational jobs to the bone and made them incredibly stressful. Thus many people can't wait to get away from the technology and get into an office where they can sit sending emails and attending meetings every day. However none of the cuts ever seam to affect the management numbers. They grow and grow as the staff numbers drop and drop. 35% of news staff worked on Monday. I would bet that 90% of theses were management which means News has at least 30% management.
BBC Staff are well aware of commercial pressures. How many major companies insist their staff all fly Economy when working abroad. Staff can work up to 20 hour days working on big events and are then forced to take a 15 hour flight back crammed into the back of a plane. No waste of license fee there.
The BBC staff are very dedicated and loyal to the cooperation. If they wanted to make money they would be working for someone else. Many believe in the ethics of the BBC and Public service broadcasting. It's why the BBC is the most trusted News organization, not only in this country but in the world.
This strike is about trying to prevent the heart being ripped out of that great corporation.
Marcus
Founding member
Dunedin posted:
Let's not hide behind the truth- the main thrust of the strikes is about job cuts.
BBC people are remarkably loyal (many join training paths young and never working anywhere else)- but this also means they're incredibly sheltered from the big bad world out there....a constantly rising license fee, guaranteed money to pay the workforce etc.
But job cuts and efficiency drives are part of everyday life for every other industry, and indeed the rest of the media sector- the BBC employees have had it good for a long, long time. The organization has ballooned to a staggering size, but failure to act now will jeopardize the future of public service, advertisement-free, high quality broadcasting in this country. Failure to act now and put more money in delivering quality programming for the real employers (every license fee payer) will kill the BBC.
The issues relating to the privatization of BBC Broadcast are again part of everyday life in every other industry- the BBC has to show a degree of commercial awareness (e.g. just like the drive for more independent programme commissions)- the privatization of BBC Broadcast is part of that responsibility.
As for individuals and their pensions- really....hate to say it again, but job movements are everyday occurrences in the big bad real world. Companies buy companies. People get switched around- only a minority get truly screwed. Pensions normally get transferred under largely the same terms- in fact I would expect the BBC HR department to sort this out with whoever takes over BBC Broadcast (the HR department is more than big enough after all!).
BBC people are remarkably loyal (many join training paths young and never working anywhere else)- but this also means they're incredibly sheltered from the big bad world out there....a constantly rising license fee, guaranteed money to pay the workforce etc.
But job cuts and efficiency drives are part of everyday life for every other industry, and indeed the rest of the media sector- the BBC employees have had it good for a long, long time. The organization has ballooned to a staggering size, but failure to act now will jeopardize the future of public service, advertisement-free, high quality broadcasting in this country. Failure to act now and put more money in delivering quality programming for the real employers (every license fee payer) will kill the BBC.
The issues relating to the privatization of BBC Broadcast are again part of everyday life in every other industry- the BBC has to show a degree of commercial awareness (e.g. just like the drive for more independent programme commissions)- the privatization of BBC Broadcast is part of that responsibility.
As for individuals and their pensions- really....hate to say it again, but job movements are everyday occurrences in the big bad real world. Companies buy companies. People get switched around- only a minority get truly screwed. Pensions normally get transferred under largely the same terms- in fact I would expect the BBC HR department to sort this out with whoever takes over BBC Broadcast (the HR department is more than big enough after all!).
Equidem posted:
BBC suspend 48-hour strike action
The planned 48-hour strike by BBC staff next week has been suspended after 20 hours of talks between the corporation and unions.
The two parties held talks throughout the night at industrial tribunal ACAS.
The unions said the BBC had made significant concessions over privatization, but had not yet addressed fears over job losses.
The strike had been due to take place on 31 May and 1 June. The unions will meet on Tuesday to discuss the issue.
The planned 48-hour strike by BBC staff next week has been suspended after 20 hours of talks between the corporation and unions.
The two parties held talks throughout the night at industrial tribunal ACAS.
The unions said the BBC had made significant concessions over privatization, but had not yet addressed fears over job losses.
The strike had been due to take place on 31 May and 1 June. The unions will meet on Tuesday to discuss the issue.
Interesting to note what an effective weapon the one day strike was. I gather management were stunned by the strength of support for the strike particularly in News. There were also horrified by the shoddy service they provided on Monday and senior managers were heard slagging off the stand in presenters as dire, but the best we could get. From what they were saying I don't think they want to employ them much in the future.
The BBC has not ballooned to a staggering size. Over the last 10 years it has been cut and cut with many parts of the infrastructure sold off. Even the buildings are not now owned by the BBC but by the diabolical Land Securities Trillium. This bit of privatization means that if you want a light fitting changed you need to ring up a centre 15 miles away who the charge the £70 for the pleasure. And don't forget how many times LST have taken the BBC off the air with it's shoddy work. NB If you want to test the emergency back up generators, please fill them with diesel first.
The BBC is over staffed with management. Part of the problem is they have cut the operational jobs to the bone and made them incredibly stressful. Thus many people can't wait to get away from the technology and get into an office where they can sit sending emails and attending meetings every day. However none of the cuts ever seam to affect the management numbers. They grow and grow as the staff numbers drop and drop. 35% of news staff worked on Monday. I would bet that 90% of theses were management which means News has at least 30% management.
BBC Staff are well aware of commercial pressures. How many major companies insist their staff all fly Economy when working abroad. Staff can work up to 20 hour days working on big events and are then forced to take a 15 hour flight back crammed into the back of a plane. No waste of license fee there.
The BBC staff are very dedicated and loyal to the cooperation. If they wanted to make money they would be working for someone else. Many believe in the ethics of the BBC and Public service broadcasting. It's why the BBC is the most trusted News organization, not only in this country but in the world.
This strike is about trying to prevent the heart being ripped out of that great corporation.
HA
Forgive me Marcus if I misunderstood, but based on what you say, we are not likely to see the likes of Stephen Cole etc on BBC News 24 at all.
harshy
Founding member
Marcus posted:
Interesting to note what an effective weapon the one day strike was. I gather management were stunned by the strength of support for the strike particularly in News. There were also horrified by the shoddy service they provided on Monday and senior managers were heard slagging off the stand in presenters as dire, but the best we could get. From what they were saying I don't think they want to employ them much in the future.
MA
Forgive me Marcus if I misunderstood, but based on what you say, we are not likely to see the likes of Stephen Cole etc on BBC News 24 at all.
No I'm sure they will still use him as a fill in, just as they did before. Same with Susan and Aktar. I'm sure they will be on after the strike just as often as they were before the strike.
Marcus
Founding member
harshy posted:
Marcus posted:
Interesting to note what an effective weapon the one day strike was. I gather management were stunned by the strength of support for the strike particularly in News. There were also horrified by the shoddy service they provided on Monday and senior managers were heard slagging off the stand in presenters as dire, but the best we could get. From what they were saying I don't think they want to employ them much in the future.
No I'm sure they will still use him as a fill in, just as they did before. Same with Susan and Aktar. I'm sure they will be on after the strike just as often as they were before the strike.