If a CSD makes it obvious they took part in IA in the briefing, they have instantly alienated crew with a different view which is bad for CRM.
Which makes the csd who was suspended - but not, I believe, sacked - for saying at the start of his briefing
" anyone who voted NO can XXXX off now"
a poor advert for the crm qualities shown by some strikers.
don’t assume they are unprofessional and don’t care about their Company or customers
Absolutely, I'll make up my own mind. But don't forget that we have flown with many sccm's, including during the strikes, and you would be surprised how obvious it usually is!
I believe that is why there has never (as far as I am aware) been a call to reinstate all the suspended and sacked, I believe DH 's request is for ACAS arbitration in the cases.
Allow me to refresh your memory.
(iv) no victimisation (including full reinstatement of all those dismissed, and restoration to their former positions of all those otherwise penalised in this dispute – (the foregoing are now identified in the current offer documentation as “relevant employees” and “processed employees”);
By the way Dingbat, do you ever mention your well documented problem with "Captain's Authority" during your flts?
I am informed that several crew - encouraged by Bassa reps and colleagues - felt they could challenge that authority; which unfortunately led to offloads and suspensions.
I agree that many of the disciplinary issues have arisen as a result of the dispute. But the cabin crew unions and leaders have continually made poor leadership decisions, and have frequently taken the view that the rules don't apply to them!
Many crew have mistakenly relied on Bassa and their reps, and other senior crew for advice and information which has either been misguided or , occasionally, deliberately misleading.
eg. The campaign to undermine staff travel, and the captain's authority, has directly led to several crew getting into serious trouble.