Hi.
MissM, you said:
I think you, and many others, are not actually understanding what the strike was all about. It was about the principle of imposition
I respect you for coming on here, against the flow, and giving us your opinions; however
I am quite insulted by your comment that you think I am not understanding what the strike was all about. I spent months and months investigating the issues and figures and challenging both sides to try to get to the truth - right up to shortly before the first strike - so I think I have an idea what it was about.
So we should ignore what was imposed and strike just because it was imposed? What if they imposed a pay rise on us (they
did impose a bonus, the cads, but I let that one pass!)? What if they decided to make club seats bigger, resulting in there being fewer of them and therefore less work for us - should we strike over that imposition?
My point is that BASSA's proposals were worse for us than what BA imposed. You are saying people should have gone on strike simply because it was imposed, ignoring what or why, thereby cutting off our noses to spite our faces.
I have some more questions if you don't mind:
Bearing in mind the false figure of £173M BASSA claimed their proposal would save, followed by the "no negotiation" vote at a meeting; refusing to look at the accounts when those that did look concluded that savings needed to be made; then the refusal to sit in the same room as Amicus for the entire period set aside for negotiations: Do you think that BASSA were negotiating effectively or sensibly?
If BASSA were not negotiating, and if savings needed to be made, is it still right to strike simply because the savings were imposed, ignoring what was imposed?
You didn't answer my query about a reduction in basic pay and overtime which you said we had suffered.
Can you please tell us when this happened as I don't remember it.
Cheers,
M