Time for a driver strike? The 20 out of 22 drivers think so.

[ecapox]

Not sure where to put this, as it doesnt really have a home, so mods please move if necessary.

Omnicorse.it has reported that in Bahrain there was a GPDA meeting. The number one thing they talked about was drivers not being paid. From reading the article, they named specific drivers who havent been getting paid (Romain Grosjean, Nico Hulkenberg, Adrian Sutil and Kamui Kobayashi) with Kamui being the only one who agreed to NOT be paid....i believe. It also included Kimi, who according to reports STILL hasnt been paid from last year's Lotus contract.

With that said, the drivers, with the exception of two, all agreed and signed a letter that said they would strike, and not drive, if this doesnt get resolved.

The two signatures missing.....Kimi, who isnt part of the GPDA, and Lewis Hamilton.

Could we have a driver strike this season and be forced to watch replacements drive? Are there even enough replacements to fill the grid with 20 drivers?

Link to Article (in Italian)

[wesley123]

Doubt they actually will strike. And even if they did, it would not strengthen their point a single bit.

The issue for the examples given is that they all come from teams who's finances have not been very secure. And I think it also is the responsibility of the driver in question to be properly informed about it. If you sign for a team and you are aware they aren't very strong financially, then yes, you can expect having issues with your payment, and certainly if you have a salary going in the millions of dollars.

As much as I think it sucks for them, there is no point in bitching and moaning about this, it is clear that they are having issues financially, else they would have paid the salary already. It isn't like Sauber is holding in Hulkenberg's salary because they hate him.

They are extremely overreacting to this situation if you ask me.

[gray41]

False threat IMO, no way Nico as an example would give up the points that Lewis would gain if he were to strike.

[i70q7m7ghw]

If Kimi hasn't been paid he needs to step up the legal action, he should definately consider a winding-up petition.

[ecapox]

Well, in the article it said something to the extent of "Strange act of solidarity" between the drivers. Not to say that they would go through with it, but it was noted that it was strange for Alonso, who is being paid, to threaten to strike if Hulkenberg isnt being paid...because...well....it isnt Alonso's problem.

[Moxie]

Well, in the article it said something to the extent of "Strange act of solidarity" between the drivers. Not to say that they would go through with it, but it was noted that it was strange for Alonso, who is being paid, to threaten to strike if Hulkenberg isnt being paid...because...well....it isnt Alonso's problem.

Every driver knows that it is just a twist of fate that prevents them from being in the same position.

I am not suggesting a "union" per Se, but the drivers would benefit themselves if the formed a more formal business group and hire lawyers to assist with contracts negotiations, so that they may negotiate a common payment schedule (not rate) into their contracts.

[Ciro Pabón]

Well, in the article it said something to the extent of "Strange act of solidarity" between the drivers. Not to say that they would go through with it, but it was noted that it was strange for Alonso, who is being paid, to threaten to strike if Hulkenberg isnt being paid...because...well....it isnt Alonso's problem.

"We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.

Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.

Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea..."

If Kimi hasn't been paid he needs to step up the legal action, he should definately consider a winding-up petition.

"... You may well ask: "Why direct action? ... Isn't negotiation a better path?"

You are quite right in calling, for negotiation.

Indeed, this is the very purpose of direct action.

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue.

It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored."

Doubt they actually will strike. And even if they did, it would not strengthen their point a single bit.
...
They are extremely overreacting to this situation if you ask me.

"Such an attitude stems from a tragic misconception of time, from the strangely rational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills.

Actually, time itself is neutral; it can be used either destructively or constructively.

More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will.

We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people."



I have to ask: if the teams are bad financially, why left drivers in last place?

Isn't a person worth of more respect than a new wing or a better gearbox?

Specially when they risk live an limb for entertaining.

Apparently, most teams would better lose a driver than a tenth. That, my dear and respected friends, it's a shame.

If someone should be on strike for this kind of treatment, in a sport that moves hundreds (if not thousands) of millions of dollars, is us, the fans.

Strength resides in unions, and there is none stronger than the one of fans and drivers.

I wonder why someone should try to understand the logic of the guy that manages teams (and money) first and the one of drivers last in that kind of issue.

Actually, an elemental principle of justice, enshrined in most legislations around this world, says that in any business the first debts to be paid in any case, even in bankruptcy, are the salaries of the workers.

Yeah, that too... Perhaps I talk too much...


... so I better shut up.

[Powershift]

Ciro, if I could +1 you for that post I would do it a million times

[WillerZ]

Isn't a person worth of more respect than a new wing or a better gearbox?

A new wing may cost you $100k but this is not that you wake up one day and decide to spend $100k on a wing. It is that you have $100k of employee's time that you already agreed to pay for and you decide to spend that time on making a new wing. You can't pay a driver with that time: the only thing you could do is fire a bunch of those employees and use the money you don't pay them to pay the driver. If you do that you may as well shut-down the team because everyone you didn't fire who's any good will run off to another team as fast as they can, and you won't find replacements because no-one will be dumb enough to work for you.

The fundamental problem is that teams have to guess how much they will have to spend, hire people (including drivers) up to that estimate, and then hope they get that income together. When they fail to find that income they have to fail to pay someone. The boss has to choose, and I hope I never have to make that choice.

[Moxie]

Isn't a person worth of more respect than a new wing or a better gearbox?

The fundamental problem is that teams have to guess how much they will have to spend, hire people (including drivers) up to that estimate, and then hope they get that income together. When they fail to find that income they have to fail to pay someone. The boss has to choose, and I hope I never have to make that choice.

This certainly presents a challenge but it is not the "fundamental problem." In the construction industry,this is a challenge most of the time. Contracts are signed and honored because the projects and tasks are prioritized. Projects that are low on the priority list bay get eliminated from the scope of work if time and budget run short. Occasionally, if time and budgets allow, wish list projects may be added to the scope of work. It is all about planning ahead for all possible outcomes.

The fundamental problem is one of honesty. Team principals make a conscious choice to buy the wing that they know is beyond their budget constraints. The flip side of that decision is that they know they are screwing someone down the road.

Part of the equation here is that some contractors understand their role as provisional help. The employees in question do not work on the customer project until the work order is signed. If the contractor does not have enough work from other work orders from the same customer or others to maintain a full workforce then a layoff may result. The customer needs to plans ahead and actually prepares a histogram of the work crew throughout the project, for each type of craft. Indeed the histogram of the driver workforce in most cases should be pretty steady, at 3 for most teams. The carbon fiber team however may have a crew size that is at its maximum early in the 2014 season, and becomes smaller as time goes on. Near the end of the season most of the carbon fiber crew would be moved to the 2015 project and budget. Now the customer is well within his right to reallocate money from the 2015 budget to pay for 2014 updates, but ignoring contracts and stealing money from the driver budget is really unacceptable.

In the construction world, union or non-union, when a customer tells the contractor "Sorry, we spent too much money on project A and we can't afford to pay you." The carpenters, pipe fitters, mill wrights, electricians...etc, walk off the job. We don't do this for free. Why should F1 drivers be different?

[langwadt]

Isn't a person worth of more respect than a new wing or a better gearbox?

The fundamental problem is that teams have to guess how much they will have to spend, hire people (including drivers) up to that estimate, and then hope they get that income together. When they fail to find that income they have to fail to pay someone. The boss has to choose, and I hope I never have to make that choice.

This certainly presents a challenge but it is not the "fundamental problem." In the construction industry,this is a challenge most of the time. Contracts are signed and honored because the projects and tasks are prioritized. Projects that are low on the priority list bay get eliminated from the scope of work if time and budget run short. Occasionally, if time and budgets allow, wish list projects may be added to the scope of work. It is all about planning ahead for all possible outcomes.

The fundamental problem is one of honesty. Team principals make a conscious choice to buy the wing that they know is beyond their budget constraints. The flip side of that decision is that they know they are screwing someone down the road.

Part of the equation here is that some contractors understand their role as provisional help. The employees in question do not work on the customer project until the work order is signed. If the contractor does not have enough work from other customers to maintain a full workforce then a layoff may result. The customer needs to plans ahead and actually prepares a histogram of the work crew throughout the project, for each type of craft. Indeed the histogram of the driver workforce in most cases should be pretty steady, at 3 for most teams. The carbon fiber team however may have a crew size that is at its maximum early in the 2014 season, and becomes smaller as time goes on. Near the end of the season most of the carbon fiber crew would be moved to the 2015 project and budget. Now the customer is well within his right to reallocate money from the 2015 budget to pay for 2014 updates, but ignoring contracts and stealing money from the driver budget is really unacceptable.

If the team is in trouble, stealing money from the driver budget might be the least bad option, it isn't right to do it
but if the regular the workers at the factory don't get paid the financial impact on them will be much higher than if
someone like Kimi doesn't get paid, he isn't going to have trouble paying his bill if he goes with out pay for a few months.

And if you decide to pay the guys the factory, a new wing only cost materials

[Moxie]

My point is that should NEVER be the issue. Believe me I have complete sympathy with the guys in the factory. Proper project management prevents this sort of thin from happening. As a construction worker in the US, I am always a temporary worker. When the project us done, my employer will move me to another project, or of he has not won bids for new projects, he lays me off. Then I am free to work for another contractor. Layoff is part of our cycle, and we all understand that.

[Pierce89]

My point is that should NEVER be the issue. Believe me I have complete sympathy with the guys in the factory. Proper project management prevents this sort of thin from happening. As a construction worker in the US, I am always a temporary worker. When the project us done, my employer will move me to another project, or of he has not won bids for new projects, he lays me off. Then I am free to work for another contractor. Layoff is part of our cycle, and we all understand that.

But its not project management. You have people they work in their field. You can't say: Aero dept no more wings cause Roma in needs his money. The aero guys are there so they work where they can make gains. The drivers get screwed but they'd rather have a faster car than they would their paycheck anyways.

[flynfrog]

The drivers get screwed but they'd rather have a faster car than they would their paycheck anyways.

Thats kinda bull ---. A driver has maybe 5-7 years to make most of the money he ever will in his lifetime. To get shorted even a year its a huge blow to his personal finances to live on for the rest of his life assuming he survives his career.

[beelsebob]

The drivers get screwed but they'd rather have a faster car than they would their paycheck anyways.

Thats kinda bull ---. A driver has maybe 5-7 years to make most of the money he ever will in his lifetime. To get shorted even a year its a huge blow to his personal finances to live on for the rest of his life assuming he survives his career.

The driver though will make more in one of those years than any of the engineers will make in his entire lifetime.

The engineer will also be much more likely to lose a house (and basically their entire life) if they're let go than a driver.

Basically, not paying an engineer stands a decent chance of ruining someone's entire life. Not paying a driver (possibly only for a short period) does not really stand that chance.