I am sure we can agree that your examples were bad ones for the reasons stated and that while you may believe what you say, you have not addressed the principal points, namely that the BASSA dispute is about protecting something in perpetuity from all external factors and the examples are all from public sector disputes with no such demands.
Nor are they subject to the laws of competition being in the public sector.
Methinks your initial response was poorly thought out and while my response may have been a little robust, possibly unnecessarily, I interpreted your response not to be poorly thought out in innocence, but to be an attempt to deflect a well thought out proposition by quoting irrelevant examples, rather than accepting the proposition was correct.
The effect on the public sector jobs has never been as as result of competition from commercial companies - they have all been caused by the public sector cost base plundering the commercial sector taxes for so long that they have eaten the cupboard dry (to mix metaphors I suspect).
Competition did not cause this. Commercial companies did not cause this. Had the public sector organisations quoted run an efficient organisation, and not gorged on the public exchequer, then there would never have been a reason to consider outsourcing.
So, without any animosity, I find your examples to be inappropriate as they are neither asking for the same level of assurances that BASSA seek, nor are the complainants subject to the commercial pressures of competition. In those two points alone, your counter argument is entirely flawed - in my opinion.