Originally Posted by
ChicoG
I think BA have made every effort to engage in meaningful discussions, but they could not sit around and wait for BASSA to "grow up" as you put it. They were haemorrhaging cash and needed to make cost cuts.
If BASSA had played ball to start with, the current situation would not exist.
They want to return things to the way they were. BA do not want to, and they are correct.
The only people that need to group up here are the BASSA reps that have lead their staff so poorly.
If, as you say, there are reps who feel this could have been sorted out a long time ago, they should communicate that fact to their fellow members and try and oust the idiots that have made so many pathetic mistakes in their desperate attempts at clinging on to power (and, lest we forget, their share of the members' subscriptions).
As I said many reps...I did not say many BASSA reps. As we are not directly involved with the dispute we cannot influence it. That said, I can assure you that many have let their feelings be known.
If BA had played ball the dispute would not have happened, easy statements to make. Your one sided view is just as appalling as BASSA's.
Both sides had some very valid points. Had two different sets of people been around the table the dispute would not have escalated.
You will never accept this as your attitude is entrenched as those you condemn. You will never understand the moderate argument any more than a BASSA rep. Equally you will never accept that BA have not been the shining light you think they are. Which is why I said we should agree to disagree....