But, it is still is a major issue when you look at it as a principle, rather than an individual point. Well, I think it is
We'll have to agree to differ on this one then!
I'll give you an example of what I think is a fundamental matter of principle worth pursuing either via industrial or legal action (or both). It's being reported today that the UK government is planning to amend the compensation (ie redundancy) terms offered to public sector workers likely to lose their jobs in the next few months. These terms are clearly defined and have been the basis of previous redundancies. Public sector workers would be aware of them as an implicit safety net in case their job disappears. Now, with large numbers of jobs at risk and potentially very large payments under the scheme, the government naturally wants to limit the cost. It is argued that redundancy terms offered to public sector workers are generous versus private sector practice, and the government says it is merely intending to align public and private sector practice.
That may very well be the case, but the fact still remains that the government is simply seeking to adjust public sector workers' terms and conditions and reduce the cost of eliminating jobs: a double whammy for affected workers who lose current income and receive a depleted "safety" payment. Compare that to the entire BA dispute, where BA imposed new conditions that averted the need for any compulsory redundancies but which engineered the cost saving they required merely by increasing productivity (whilst actually allowing many staff to get the lifestyle changes they wanted incidentally). The dispute now appears to centre solely on workers rights to discretionary perks.
So I ask you, Litebulbs: you have a £1 million strike pay and/or legal fees pot. Fighting to maintain the redundancy entitlements of public sector workers who have done nothing to harm their employer, or fighting to force BA to continue to allow strikers who have harmed their business by striking to continue to access what is agreed to be a discretionary perk. The former impacts at least 10x the number of your members compared to the latter. Which is the better use of your pot?
As I said before, Unite and BA's interests are actually totally aligned in respect of BASSA. Unite should now follow BA's lead and deal with the problem. Failure to do so simply disadvantages the wider Union membership.