Originally Posted by
Meal Chucker
The ballot for strike action is not about what actual changes have been made, whether contractual or not, it is about the imposition of changes.
So even if the changes are judged to be non-contractual Bassa will ballot regardless because changes have been made without their agreement. (as I understand it!!)
Well, I think you misunderstand it.
The original ballot was cast because BASSA said the BA had breached the contracts by imposing changes that were contractual. It was not about the changes themselves mind you, it was about due process. IF the changes are not contractual than there any strike over BA not following due process is illegal. If the changes are non-contractual BASSA can not call a strike over the changes themselves either. Illegal too, since it is not part of what they are party to (for lack of a better expression).
The only option BASSA would have is to now claim the
new strike is about something else entirely. I don't think even the strongest BASSA supporters on here would accept that.
You see: the reasoning behind the strike has always been very, very flimsy (legally) and even with a successful re-ballot and with a ruling in its favor BASSA cannot strike. BA will hit them with another injunction and probably win again.
If BASSA wins, there is no more reason to strike (unless you make up a new one)
If BASSA loses a strike is illegal and besides, they will be in court defending themselves against all kinds of claims...
Nobody wins. Not BA, not the CC, not the passengers, not the rest of the staff, not the shareholder, not even WW himself.
We all lose.
BA staff can go work for a new airline (probably called BA Airways) against T&C comparable with Virgin. Remember Pyrrhus?