Andrew Lobbenberg's note
Firstly, thanks to Da Dog for posting the above. It is an interesting summary of the Union position.
What makes it most interesting is that the clear message from it is that the dispute is really about control, and nothing to do with the actual changes. AL makes the point that many of the (middle) managers with whom Union reps have previously agreed such matters have already left BA. BA is now tackling the other side of the issue.
That raises the question: how does the Union maximise its influence in future? There is simply no chance of the staus quo remaining if BA want to change it. IA appears an irrelevance, and AL's meeting summary confirmed my own view that the ballot and IA are pointless. The real deal here is the Court case. However, even if Unite wins it, they will still lose, and lose very badly in my view. Incidentally, I do not share the view they "lost" at the interim injunction hearing. They simply did not take the risk that, had they taken an interim injunction and then lost, they would have been bankrupt. It was a sensible tactical retreat: lose the battle, win the war.
What is the Union really looking to defend? AL's note suggests it is nothing less than maintaining a veto on operational matters affecting the routine running of BA. Unfortunately, successful companies are not run in this producer-centric manner. They are run in a customer-centric manner which, ultimately, results in profits. The Union ought to be working with BA to maximise profits and then seek a decent "cut" of the profit for its members. I will give you a simple example. From what I have read on here, when BA was disrupted by weather in early-2009, it appears CC insisted on staying two nights away from base under the terms of the disruption agreement. Presumably they get some sort of "hardship" payment for this, which they would not get if they got the planes back to base quicker. A more sensible, customer-centric, agreement would have as its objective getting passengers back to their destination, and planes to where they ought to be for future operations, as quickly as possible. The Union demand ought to be for some kind of bonus payment if achieving these objectives are achieved in a given timeframe. The staff cost to BA may well end up being the same (they save peripherals such as hotel costs), but there is a clear marketing benefit in minimising customer disruption and the goodwill that engenders. That should be the way remuneration is negotiated generally: work out how to meet/beat customer expectation, then reward people who meet/beat it. Embed those rewards in employee contracts. As the service/product evolve, revisit the rewards.
What Unite appears to be fighting for, however, is to maintain a veto on the service/product BA provides, effectively freezing in time the requirements in terms of staffing and payments for non-compliance with such product/service agreements. They simply cannot win this fight. Even if they win in Court, they will lose. Ultimately, companies can change whatever they want in staff contracts. A win in Court for the Union simply makes this a longer and (short-term) costlier exercise. Utlimately, however, BA could just lay off all 14,000 CC on compulsory redundancy having gone through due process and consultation, and then offer as many staff as they want new contracts on the terms they want. It is a futile battle. Sure, the Union will have "won the argument", but that pays no bills.
Not only is it futile, but it is very high risk for the Union (as opposed to its individual members). It seems to me that if the Union took the pragmatic, customer-centric approach I describe, then it remains a relevant and useful party in BA's human resource management. However, if it remains of the view that it ought to be able to veto reasonable management decisions, then its relevance declines. In that case, BA ought to (and probably will) seek alternative means of communicating and consulting with staff. It will seek to bypass the Union. As Union influence declines, members question its relevance and leave, resulting in lower memberhip stats and revenue.
If the Union loses the Court case, and still sticks to its attitude of having veto rights over decisons BA considers rightfully its alone, then the Union will lose all influence. If the Union loses in Court, it will suffer very high costs, ie will not be in a position to defend further legal claims against BA. In which case, I see little to stop BA writing to the Union and stating it no longer recognises it for collective bargaining purposes. The Union may still meet the requirements for recognition, but in the event of a Court loss, it may not have the financial means to prove that point and force BA to comply. Even if it could, it would incur further heavy costs, and certainly then be in no position to fight further changes to its status that BA wishes to make.
So, it seems to me, the Union has chosen the wrong fight. It would be better off in the long term accepting that its influence over day-to-day operations will diminish, but seeking imaginative ways to ensure its members share in any rewards generated by the changes BA insists are necessary and will return it to attractive levels of profit. That seems to be the approach, certainly on this forum, that many Union members want the Union to pursue.
Will the Union's failure to do this impact their members negatively? I do not think it will. BA is engaged in exactly the same battle as the Union but from the opposite side: namely to regain control over its operations. It is not battling its staff per se. If BA can ascertain from staff what they really do and do not like, it will adjust product and working conditions accordingly. I would suggest this dispute should be seen as being as much about BA being able to get closer to the bulk of its CC staff as about diminishing Union power. These are two sides of the same coin.
We are already seeing this happening. There are one or two posts above along the lines of: "I'll try the new procedures and if they don't work I'll feedback to my manager". That is all that BA want. If the feedback is expressed as "we cannot deliver the promised service", then BA will change either the service or the crewing to make it deliverable. There is no commercial benefit in not doing so. Conversely, by being seen to respond to staff feedback, there is a positive feedback loop that management does listen. It encourages further (even unsolicited) suggestions for change and questioning the status quo. Coming from staff with the greatest interface with paying customers, it is the most valuable source of information. It is actually quite ironic that CC appear to be the staff with the least direct input to product management and development right now, yet they have the most customer interraction.
Sorry for a long post from a total outsider. However, I always feel a disinterested observer can offer useful opinions as a catalyst to better debate internally.