Originally Posted by
GS-Alpha
What changed with the offer to take it from a strong vote to strike, to a strong vote to accept the new deal? I did not understand striking in the first place, but now I am really confused as to why it happened.
Way I see it:
1. In many peoples minds the original ballot was about much more than a pay deal - thinks rostering, hotel standards, and the whole raft of other stuff you hear grumbles about on the line every working day.
2. The two days of IA
might have got a bit of movement from the company (I remain to be convinced) but it also allowed IAG/BA to demonstrate what sanctions is was prepared to use against the strikers and also against the Union.
3. After that it seemed to me the reps had gone as far as they felt they could in the subsequent negotiations through ACAS....
4. It was fairly clear to me that if the majority of membership had voted “no” in the recent (second) ballot most of the BACC would have resigned and it would have left BALPA weakened..
5. IMHO The result of the second ballot is more of a reflection of the membership’s desire to keep BALPA functioning and provide some protection for T&Cs, rather than people having a change in heart over the company’s meager pay offer and suddenly thinking it’s a great deal.