Originally Posted by am i bothered
1. The deadline for the 30th June was a self imposed deadline. The fact that more talks are scheduled for the end of the month concludes the fact that talks will go beyond this date. The reason being apart from engineers and pilots no deal has been struck with the other departments.
The June 30th deadline was imposed by Keith Williams so he could go to the capital markets with a funding proposition before they shut up shop for the summer. He was succesful, but only on the basis of his business plan delivering all the savings it detailed. You can stall the talks all you want but the £350M BA needs to survive is only coming when you deliver
all your savings
in full. Dragging talks out only means you have to save the money over a shorter period of time: more pain for you.
As for the union being made to look foolish for turning up for talks after this date I beg to differ. It was broadcasted on sky news that one side didnt turn up even though we are supposedly in a fight for survival. This was repeated through out the morning until they decided to call in Acas.
Nobody who matters was fooled by that little stunt. ACAS were not called in as a consequence of your TV charade.
Why were ACAS called in before a failure to agree had been registered??
Because the negotiation period was up. BA does not dance to your unions tune.
2. Acas are not coming to impose a solution. Correct me if I am wrong but both sides I thought had to agree for the findings to binding.
ACAS never were coming to impose a solution. They were there to facilitate talks, but once your union has made it clear it won't agree to the targets then ACAS can do no more. BA, on the other hand, have ticked another box on the SOSR checklist.
3. SOSR is something I dont know too much about but am keen on researching it further. An alternative proposal has been offered which believe it or not offers a lot of savings and improved productivity. The issue here is not the amount of savings but how the savings are to be achieved.
Well you'd better learn fast. See my previous point. The BASSA proposal delivered a third of the savings BA wants. The issue most definitely is the amount of the savings, as well as how they are achieved.
4. Forced redundancies could be imposed but this is a very messy area as this prohibits further recruitment for a minimum period and could seriously hamper the operation when extra man power is required.
BA aren't going to be recruiting for some time. Almost certainly longer than any prohibited period as a result of CR. If they are short of manpower they'll just operate the flights with reduced crew levels. Do you really think existing crew levels are going to be in place like they are now after this is over?
5. If we are in so much dire straits as this thread suggests then why would a strike fund be necessary. A company that has been offered in excess of 150 million in savings turns it down then is prepared to utilize a war chest is not fighting for survival.
Because you've only offered £50M and the company needs £173M. The strike fund is an investment in the companys survival. If the company isn't to end up like GM then it needs to force change, and that may require money.
If employees are dismissed for taking part in legal strike action then this will back fire and the strike I presume will continue until all are re instated just like what happened at Total.
Do you know what actually happened at Total? It doesn't seem like it. How many months do you think the die hards will stay out on strike without pay when so many crew are drifting back to work. There's barely any serious appetite for anything more than a protest ballot at the moment.
Also with regards to the external audit if this was as one sided as some seem to think, then why was this not plastered all over corporate media channels??
Do you mean the PWC audit? Why would it need to be? You've all been told individually by email, no need to trumpet it. Are you seriously trying to suggest that because it wasn't on the front page of the BA News that it must have been false?
Also talks were not stonewalled as some describe. Alternative offers were presented yet one side refused to budge one iota.
BASSAs counteroffer (in the last two days of the three weeks talk period) was laughable. Absolute peanuts of savings, as the PWC audit confirmed. Why should BA budge? The bottom line is you have to save the cash they want, not what you want.
Also with regards to them being well prepared. I beg to differ. Terminal 5 need I say any more
BAs lawyers weren't responsible for T5.
What would the defence be for SOSR??
The company is losing money faster than it can earn it and unless the savings are made the company will go bust. It's the best defence there is. It's the only defence. And BA have ticked every box in the negotiation checklist to show a High Court judge they've been reasonable.
Notification period? Check.
Talks with the union? Check.
Consulation with staff? Check.
ACAS involvement? Check.
Talks with senior union officials? Check.
It would have been used time and time again if it was that simple.
It's not that simple. You have to prove the company may go under to justify it. This is a worse time for the industry than 9/11. Even Easyjet and Ryanair are taking a hammering. Now is the time they can convince an impartial outsider of the necessity for change.
The legal team are responsible for making sure everything is above board and then advise the membership accordingly. Unites legal team are known to be one of the best in the business.
No, they are not. Good lawyers don't work for trade unions on low salaries. What Unites lawyers do know is when BA has them by the balls over the Gate Gourmet dispute, the statute of limitations for which is unexpired. What they should also know is the SOSR rules, something which BASSAs reps clearly do not. I expect when the Unite lawyers give them the low down on how BASSAs conduct has holed any defence against SOSR below the waterline we'll see a few reps leaving to spend more time with their families.