Putting forward hypothetical positions without any evidence of proof, is rife in the anti-BASSA sentiment on this thread.
What, like claiming its a union-busting exercise? Or claiming that Willie has had to move on because he failed in his management of the dispute?
I am not going to trade insult with JT or others here, I like dealing in facts.
And yet you've failed to produce many of these so-called facts. You can't even get the BALPA Open Skies dispute right, despite it all being public domain.
And the fact is that in resolving a dispute as bitter as that which BA has emabraked on with its cabin crew, it is important that a resolution is found that cannot be dissected into a simple polarisation of who won or who lost.
I would say BASSA embarked on the dispute in anticipation of BA rolling over. It didn't happen and they've been floundering since, seeking to pin the blame on Walsh, pilots, VCC, scabs, bent judges and anyone else they can lash out at. The fact remains that after more than two years of dispute you are worse off than you were before. That
is a fact.
In this dispute there are no winners; it has been costly for both sides. It was a war of attrition and like any war that is unable to succeed with a knockout punch, eventually both sides have to sue for peace.
Blimey, it seems reality has started to dawn on you. There may be no winners, but BA have secured circa £25M savings per year on an ongoing basis.
The principle of imposition does not stand, as that is exactly what UNITE want to establish, so that employers do not emulate BA's disastrous example.
It does stand. The court agreed with it. Unite have not overturned. BA have imposed and gotten away with it. Unless you've seen the extra purser position return and the CSD back in their office.
Remember other large companies who were facing industrial action in 2009 like British Gas, the AA and BT were able to successfully resolve their differences through negotiations.
As did BA, with every single other employee group.
Only BA decided to take a macho line employing union busting tactics and were widely condemned by over 100 academics.
Evidence of the union-busting techniques please? BA took a hard line after over 12 months of negotiation, during which BASSA adopted a 'no negotiation' stance.
The Royal Mail was suffering from a similar management style as BA until its CEO Adam Crozier left for ITN. Only after his departure was the dispute quickly resolved. The same will be the case at BA hopefully.
Hmmm, parallels. Two companies that have been owned by the state, who are failing to keep up with more fleet-footed competitors and in whom some employees simply cannot accept the fact they are no longer a monopoly and have to adapt.
And that is what is at the root of BA's dispute, and the reason why an industrial psychologist has been employed to navigate a path to resolve matters. It became personal and the personality of one man in particular, made it impossible to end the dispute.
Exactly. By jove you've got it. That man is Duncan Holley.
It was always going to be a difficult dispute for BA's cabin crew who have a job that most people clearly covet. It is notable that most VCC's have not queued up to join the Mixed Fleet. Why not?
Because they have perfectly good jobs elsewhere in BA and are not wannabe cabin crew. They are there to help BA through a difficult industrial time.
So just to remind those who say we have lost, you have weakened trade unionism through getting involved in another departments dispute.
Nope. There are no negative consequences to trade unionisn at all. The law has not changed. BASSAs stupidity in being unable to to operate within the law has no implications for other more competently run unions.
It was none of your business anymore than cabin crew criticising the actions of pilots, had they gone on strike over OpenSkies. You cannot run with the fox and the hounds.
When cabin crew said they'd strike til BA went bust it became all of our business. When you threaten the livelihoods of other employees don't expect them to stand by and ignore it.
The legacy of this dispute will be BA analysing those departments who were able to supply VCC's and yet still managed to perform and make their targets. Clearly the airline is still grossly overstaffed on the ground, and I trust BA will wield the axe and cut all of those unnecessary jobs that are burdening its profits.
Those departments were analysed repeatedly before the axe even came close to your department. I doubt they've got much to fear.