The court case was about whether crewing level's were contractual. The reasons for going on strike originally was about 'imposition' and going against agreements.
Sorry can't agree, these are one in the same, the contractual element of the crewing levels has been absolutely central to the BASSA/UNITE argument since the beginning.
As an outsider I do feel that the whole 'fighting for survival' was just smoke and mirrors to get rid of a union.
So the global downturn had no impact on us? Massive losses for the last two years. Spiking oil prices, massive reduction in premium traffic not helped by the collapse of one of our biggest clients. The only reason we are back to a vaguely sustainable position is the reduction in costs required during the downturn. All staff groups have contributed and engaged apart from one, lead into confrontation by their union. Please refer back to the original offer which included share options, no new fleet and a pay deal, not really the actions of a company hellbent on union busting.
I also have the feeling that Mr Walsh picked a fight thinking he'd win quite easily. How wrong he has been.
Again sorry cant agree, he hasn't been one step ahead all of the way through he has been several. At the beginning he had modest cost savings from crew, now he has original cost saving PLUS new fleet to give a permanent long term reduction year on year to the IFCE budget. He doesn't care about ST and disciplinary, the cold truth is that he has achieved more cost savings out of our crew than he could have every imagined at the outset, not because of what he has done, but through the reaction of the representatives.
I do hope things can be worked out soon.
I do agree with you here though.