A.Lurker....
you are to be commended on your sensible and mature discussion on this forum; it makes for interesting reading and quite often provides helpful and thought-provoking insight into the views/stance of the unions.
I do, however, feel that the unions haven't been very honest with their communications, which I am led to believe will all be taken as admissible evidence in any future legal proceedings....not just the feb case, but also any future attempt by BA to sue UNITE for retrospective damages.
What is your take on whether or not a legally striking crew member can be sacked?
BASSA insisted as per their Nov communication, "Absolutely not".
As a crew member weighing up whether or not strike action was REALLY putting my job on the line, I would say that "Absolutely not", was black and white, even though, as L337 points out, they go onto say, "if you get dismissed" (something I missed myself).
Also, was there not a big deal at the Sandown (sp?) Race Course, when BASSA got a lawyer/solicitor to stand up and verbally 'confirm' to the assembled masses that they could NOT be sacked?
Just for clarity, I would assume (dangerous, I know!), that most people would consider the removal of my security pass I.D, carpark priviledges, monthly salary, pension payments, uniform to be returned, cancellation of staff travel and NEVER AGAIN TO OPERATE AS STAFF IN ANY CAPACITY FOR BRITISH AIRWAYS....as being sacked.
Whether or not there is an unfair dismissal hearing a couple of years down the line, and whether or not I get awarded a legally capped (and apparently quite small, although for some reason BASSA said, "large amounts of compensation") payment, is neither here nor there....SACKED, in my honest opinion, is SACKED. Do you disagree?
Do you accept that this is at best a deliberate 'white lie', intended to offer union members a false hope of security in what could clearly develop into a very messy confrontation with the employer?
I hope you understand why some of us 'outsiders' feel that the unions' deliberate misrepresentation of the facts, the financial numbers, the 'negotiations', the pilots' deal and-so-on-and-so-forth, would be enough for us to question the very PURPOSE and more importantly, the very AGENDA of the union.
I hope no-one reading thinks that this debate is about slinging mud at Cabin Crew, it really isn't - it's about trying to understand why the supposedly democratic 'voice' of the Cabin Crew membership has lied, time after time, has sold other bases, other 'classes' of Cabin Crew down the river, has refused to analyse confidential company finances then pretended to 'advise' crew on company finances, has steadfastly refused to negotiate on what we all now know is desperately needed change, has convinced its electorate that their management are not to be trusted, their colleagues in other departments are not to be trusted...that all you need to know will be force-fed to you from a select few who have been shown to only be interested in protecting their OWN Ts & Cs. Does this not ring ANY alarm bells? Is EVERYONE else in BA evil/wrong?
...people (who also have ALOT to lose from the inevitable fallout of this 'dispute') want to understand why these glaringly obvious forms of disingenuous union representation are tolerated and encouraged by the very people who pay the union wages and are now being shafted by the union in the worst possible way?!
From my point of view it beggars belief, but to join BASSA on 'the same page' and use a WWII analogy, weren't the German people blissfully ignorant of how wrong the stance and philosophy of their democratically elected government was? They only listened to one side of the argument, and to be fair, cannot be blamed for their brain-washing......whilst I understand ANY comparison with this dispute and WWII risks being distasteful, I would argue that there are similarities as mentioned above, would you not agree?