British Airways - CC Industrial Relations & Negotiations

[Pontius]

changes should come via means of negotiation not imposition.
There are way of removing this imposition

Romans44,

Why should the 'imposition' be removed? BASSA had more than enough opportunities to negotiate and failed to do so. They produced a plethora of lies regarding the cost savings involved in their proposal, failed to attend meetings and, rather than behaving in a mature manner and recognising the need for change, chose instead to bury their heads in the sand. Instead of looking at the financial reality of today's aviation world they decided it would be a good idea to enrage the uneducated faithful with stories of how fuel hedging, court fines and nasty Mr Walsh's personality were all to blame.

What the BASSA lemmings fail to remember is the Company is not run by, nor for, BASSA and the cabin crew. BASSA are there to collectively negotiate but they are not satisfied with that. Without a mandate from The Board, BASSA 'leaders' feel it is up to them to dictate how the airline should be run and have ideas way above their station and, evidently, considerably above their intelligence level. Had they stuck to what they are meant to i.e collective negotiation, you would not be in this mess. But, no, they sought to tell Mr Walsh and The Board how there was no financial problem, that changes only needed to be temporary and, for some inexpecable reason, that everybody in BA, bar the cabin crew, needed to sort out the mess.

So, in short, BASSA failed you. They were warned what would happen if they didn't negotiate before the end of June and they chose to ignore that warning because they thought they were better than everyone else in BA. So now you, the cabin crew, have to 'suck it up', whether you like it or not. Your union has put you in this position through their ineptitude and belief that they know better.

There is no reason whatsoever for the imposition to be removed, especially as there's no other way BASSA are going to pull their fingers out and start saving some money. So, instead of crying out about how unfair the world is and how it wouldn't happen if somebody other than nasty WW was in charge, wind your necks in, get to work and do the job you're paid to, even if it does mean you're working slightly harder this week than you were last.

[Alexandraa]

romans44

I don't know where BA got the basic salary of 14.000 for Virgin but I can tell you that my basic salary is a lot less than that.
I am a junior crew member and I do not earn 35.000 pounds, though I wish I did.

Me neither to be honest.

Basic salary for the first first year with BA is less than £11.000 but I actually think that VS pays less than that.

There are far too many numbers circulating.

[Glamgirl]

Romans44,

You had a couple of posts earlier where you sounded fairly reasonable and willing to discuss some issues. Then all of a sudden you went for Bronx. May I ask why? (By the way, I have no idea who Bronx is, but I don't think there was a need to attack him/her).

Anyways, as others have said here, it is advisable to read this whole thread from the beginning. Actually, would you believe, this looong thread is the third in a series? Lots of opinions, as I'm sure you understand.

It is pretty obvious to me that you've been informed (mainly) by the union for however long (bear with me here, I'm not being nasty). To me though, it seems that recent events have made you consider other options, and that's why you're here. Please let us inform you. If you want to believe us, that's great. If you don't, that's your perogative.

As a short summary of events to date:

Recession starts 2008. People around the world lose their jobs, companies go bust. Airlines disappear. XL, Silverjet, Maxjet, Eos and FlyGlobespan springs to mind (FGS most recent).

BA are losing money due to downturn in the travel market, especially premium cabins, which is the money-maker for us.

BA start negotiations with the union(s) to come up with a deal for saving costs. It has been said many times here that bassa didn't turn up to several meetings, or refused to talk, or refused to view a presentation, or sit in the same room as a rep from amicus. Also, bassa/unite refused to sign confidentiality agreement that was needed to view BA's accounts.

BA gives a deadline of 30th June. Warning comes from WW that if no deal is made, imposition will happen.

Bassa produce a (seemingly) ill-prepared list of what cc can contribute towards cost savings, claiming it's worth £175m. However, it's a temporary measure (to be fully repaid in two years), includes a pay cut BA didn't ask for and members weren't consulted as to what they were willing to do to save costs.

Big union member meeting is held where members show hands to agree to "no further negotiation".

Acas is involved in several meetings to mediate between the two parties.

PWC analyse union's cost savings and deem the savings to £54m, a lot less than union's claim.

Union threaten with ballot if imposition happens.

Imposition is announced by BA. It involves taking a crew member (2 in some instances) off each aircraft, Purser swap/removal and a pay freeze. No money taken away from cc.

Union announce intent to ballot.

And you know the rest (not insinuating you didn't know the other stuff above, by the way). I will add that plenty of other things happened in between, but I'm trying to keep this as short as possible.

The main problem in this whole mess is that it has been proven that the union has lied to its members. They have come across badly, and given cc a bad image, as most people now think we're over paid primadonnas.

This could have been solved quite some time ago, if only the union would be willing to negotiate. The union has said they'll negotiate if the imposition is removed, forgetting that over a 1000 cc have left the company on VR or taken part time and there isn't anyone to fill the old crewing levels. (Cue short-cut to NewFleet). Also, the union has forgotten that LGW has operated with the imposed crewing levels for over 3 years, without any problems.

Romans, I'm honestly not trying to be condescending here. I'm trying my best to explain things as to why it is important that this gets resolved asap before we (BA) go bust and we're all out of a job. Customers are leaving in droves due to the uncertanty (sp?) as to whether the cc will strike at some point or not. We're losing at least £1m a day. BA must have a cash reserve, otherwise investors get the jitters, we'll be forced to pay back any loans now, and fuel will have to be paid for in cash to name a few. Basically, a more slippery road than the road up to my flat this morning...

I'd like you to note that I'm writing all this calmly, and with more than a hint of sadness. I would like nothing more than for the union and BA to come to some kind of agreement, and if we could have some form of no-strike deal included (mutually agreed), then all the better for future bookings. Customers may then finally find a bit of faith in us and return.

We need to build confidence back into the public. We now, more than ever, need to prove to the customers we have left, that we want our jobs and that we like/love our jobs. This is the time for people who don't enjoy it anymore (for whatever reason) to consider alternative employment. We need to get back on track and create a good cycle. Provide the best customer service we can. Go the extra mile. Smile and be willing to help. Get our reputation back. This will bring customers back, bringing money into the company, and we can invest in new aircraft, new products, new seats, new avod (please).

Come on folks, let's make ourselves proud again.

Gg (Emotional, but sober)


Ps. Sorry for long post, but I had to do it

[Alexandraa]

SlideBustle

Longhaul I'm not too familiar with their agreements but
-crew complements as they are
-SFO, LAX etc just single night (again not necassarily an agreeable one but an idea to pick and choose from)
-new disruption agreement
Any other ideas from longhaul people then say but yeah, along with new contracts etc surely a couple of these proposals from both fleets would add up to a good savings?? I'm sure many BASSA people will be saying No to all of those but facts are, WW are not doing it to be mean, they have to change some things like many other companies to survive. Plus, they want to keep our pay the same... Or negotiate a reasonable agreement whereby new fleet is created, current crew either have oppurtunity to transfer or go for promotion on NF etc if they wish or stay on EF/WW on current pay and company and unions agree on a matrix of routes to be transferred and a decent fixed payment to save the worry of ''starvation of work'' for current fleets!

Single nighstops in LAX and SFO and operating both out and inbound flights would be extremely tiring. It would also include LAS, PHX and possibly CPT and JNB too. Another problematic bit would be that we would be hitting our 900 hours a lot quicker than we already are. Full-time crew average around 850 hours plus and put on endless 24 HR blocks.

Disruption Agreement can be negotiated and I think most crew would agree on that as it is anything but flexible. On most disruptions I have been on, which have been a few in my time at BA, most crew have been wanting to get home as soon as possible rather than staying on the ground for two nights. Especially when you are stuck at Prestwick or somewhere around the corner of LHR.

I don't know what else could be changed on WW. We can't lose another crew member because that would simply not work. Some flights are hard as they are with current crewing levels yet manageable with the right crew.

I have never worked on EF but some of my friends do and without stabbing them, or any other EF crew, in the back there I think some changes could probably be made. If they average 600 block hours a year surely they could be rostered differently to do more flights but keep the duty days shorter. As I understand some can sit around CRC for two and a half hours between two sectors. Duty day could be ten hours long but block hours four or five. Everyone is entitled to a break but maybe shorten it down a bit, do the sector and either go home or to the hotel. I would prefer that as it would give me more time off!

[Desertia]

Unite/BASSA announce their intention to reballot for strike action, even though it can't now happen until the court case.

How dumb are they?

I can only hope there are enough cabin crew out there now that realise how badly this union have sold them down the river, and return these ballots with NO!

While I'm at it, there are thousands of cabin crew not affiliated to BASSA or CC89, and thousands that are no longer interested in the UNITE/BASSA destructive approach.

Have BALPA considered opening a CC section? After all, these seem to be many of you with a similar view to engaging the company and working with them. (Plus, you can charge them a tenner a month, it's good money you know, ask Lizanne and Len).


<asbestos coat on, runs for cover>

[Nutjob]

romans44

Why would the High Court not put a stop to BA imposition, when even the BA lawyers aggreed that there were irregularities with the imposition?

Ultimately, because as long as the crewing levels are at or above the CAA minimums, then BA is "legal" and can crew it's aircraft as IT see's fit. Not playing along to La La Lady's tune. Seriously, what hope is there for BA if it doesn't even decide how many staff to man it's aircraft with?

Also, because BA (legally unproven as yet) believe they have only imposed changes to "agreements", not "contractual changes". BASSA may have spat their dummy over this but pause for thought. BA saw this coming with BASSA's intransigence, consulted their lawyers and then imposed only what it believed to be changes to "Agreements".

You'll find another answer to another question here...."why did BA only impose £40m (initially) of changes when BASSA offered £54m?".

Answer: Because that's all they could do that wasn't a contractual change. So don't be too confident for the court case in February. BA haven't just taken a punt here, they made sure they were watertight before they imposed.


I'll also help with an answer to one of the previously posted questions. If BASSA win a momentous victory and imposition is removed, then BA will recruit onto New Fleet. As I mentioned before, you will still snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Now why are you risking your job, mine, that of all our other employees and planning to ruin the travel plans of millions?

Pay cut? NO
Working with less crew? YES
New crew recruited on to New Fleet and hence able to decide for themselves whether those Terms & Conditions are worth accepting? YES

and the rhetoric...
"mumble, mumble......poison dwarf, destroy our airline, price fixing , fuel hedging, pay cut , job not worth doing , take this airline down with me , United we stand .....mumble mumble"

Now compare yourself with those at Globespan or Excel. Do you see ANY relevance whatsoever? (If not, then I despair )

You still have a job and despite the BASSA rhetoric, it is still one that's worth doing, even after BA's drastic imposition
You could do worse than reading this thread from the beginning, availing yourself of some facts, recognising the BASSA spin and accepting that life will go on (in fact it already has) and isn't THAT bad on the Dark Side of the imposition.

P.S Fellow Cabin Crew, voted NO and will strikebreak as much as required to get our passengers where they need to be and to rid BA of the militant disease that threatens to destroy it. Merry Xmas!

[Der absolute Hammer]

Well, here is your villain or scapegoat. Certainly witless by the sound of it and probably vengeful. Foot osteoporosis? An age related disease leading to increased risk of fracture-possibly as a result of kicking too many hard objects in the course of life.
Comes the pension problem now?

Certainly rank-and-file cabin crew members were feeling deflated after the High Court verdict. In her ruling, Mrs Justice Laura Cox found that 811 crew members who had taken voluntary redundancy had wrongly been included in the ballot count. She singled out the chairwoman of the local branch of the union for wrongly advising staff who knew they were leaving BA that they could still participate in the ballot. The judge said that Lizanne Malone, the chairwoman of Unite’s cabin crew section — British Airlines Stewards and Stewardesses Association (BASSA) — had wrongly posted a statement on the BASSA website encouraging those staff to vote.
That crucial piece of evidence and Unite’s decision to defend the BA injuction caused some misgiving among cabin crew members.
“How can I be expected to put my job on the line on a union’s advice when they can get such a simple fact so wrong,” one cabin crew member wrote on the BASSA website.
“I am feeling sick! How can Unite make such a huge mistake,” wrote another.
The union hierarchy also sought to distance itself from Ms Malone. As the chair of the local branch committee, she was ultimately responsible for the decision to strike for a full 12 days. The length of the planned action stunned many cabin crew members, who voted on a simple question asking if they were prepared to take industrial action.
Union bosses were evidently taken aback by the severity of the planned unrest. Derek Simpson, the joint general secretary, said that a 12-day stoppage over Christmas, which would have cost the company hundreds of millions of pounds and grounded most of the BA fleet, was “probably over the top”.
Mr Woodley said: “I think what we will have to do next time is the reps will have to consider the length of it. I think they will have to moderate the strike back to the traditional three-day arrangement.”

My traditional three day arrangement is a long weekend with the family before I fly off again somewhere, secure in the knowledge that my travel plans are not subject to the whims of a group of over paid, over cosseted Communists whose probable only understanding of Marx is that that is the place to which one goes to buy a Spencer.

[Willi B]

Does anybody have a link to the actual High Court judgment?

[Der absolute Hammer]

Someone said that that won't be published until Monday. My little quote cam from your Times today. Usuall, when they report like that, they are being accurate.

[Der absolute Hammer]

Danny2
Administrator

Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 119


For those of you interested, below is the judgement made in the High Court yesterday:

Quote:

British Airways Plc v Unite the Union

Queen's Bench Division



17 December 2009

Case Digest



Summary: Interim injunctions; Industrial action; Industrial action against airlines over Christmas period; Non-compliance with statutory requirements for ballots; Balance of convenience

Abstract: The applicant airline (BA) applied for an interim injunction to restrain the respondent trade union (Unite) from proceeding with industrial action based on the result of a ballot.
BA had embarked on a cost-cutting and efficiency exercise and had sought to reduce its cabin crew headcount. Litigation ensued, but in advance of the trial Unite called for a 12-day strike over the Christmas period.
Notice of intention to ballot cabin crew for the strike, the notice of the results and notice of industrial action was provided to BA. BA claimed that Unite had not complied with the requirements for a ballot under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 s.227 , s226A and s.234A .

According to BA, Unite included in the balloting constituency a significant number of volunteers for redundancy who were known by it to be leaving BA's employment by the relevant date; in its notice of ballot Unite failed to provide accurate figures with regard to the total numbers of employees that it reasonably believed would be entitled to vote in the ballot; and in its notice of industrial action it had failed to provide accurate figures with regard to those employees who might be induced to take part in the strike. Unite relied on s.232(b) of the Act, claiming that any failure to comply with statutory requirements was accidental.

Held:

(1) There were breaches of technical statutory requirements by Unite. Unite could not rely on the defence under s.232(b) of the Act, and nor could it say that it had taken such steps as were reasonably practicable for the purposes of s.227, s226A and s.234A.
Unite was in possession of information concerning employees who had volunteered for redundancy. In the light of that information it was aware, or ought to have been aware, that the figures provided to BA included those who opted for voluntary redundancy and thus included Unite's members who were not entitled to vote. It was practicable and reasonable to enquire as to which members were leaving BA's employment.
Unite had never issued instructions to members about not voting if they were leaving BA's employment by the relevant date, despite having had opportunities to do so.
Further, there was insufficient evidence that any inaccuracy in the information provided was due to intransigency on BA's part. Evidence showed that Unite was clearly on notice that its figures were inaccurate and that the balloting process was flawed.

(2) The balance of convenience lay in favour of granting the injunction sought by BA. Damages were not an adequate remedy for BA and the a strike over the 12 days of Christmas was fundamentally more damaging to BA and the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any other time of the year.

Application granted.



There you are. Sorry, it is the only way I can represent it.

[wee one]

Originally Posted by Bronx

romans44




Because that’s not what the court hearing this week was about?
That’s your opinion as a union man/woman, but would neutral unbiased people agree it’s a known fact?
According to Google, Unite couldn’t have had a more liberal (Left Wing) judge:
Before her appointment she was Head of Cloisters Chambers where she specialised, wrote and lectured for many years in discrimination and employment, European and human rights law. Cloisters Chambers was founded by barristers with a common goal of fighting for the rights of the individual and are retained as advisors to the three equality commissions - Commission for Racial Equality, Disability Rights Commission and Equal Opportunities Commission.
She was regularly named in legal directories as one of the leading practitioners in equality and employment law in both domestic and European courts.
In 1998 she was appointed and continues to serve as the British member of the International Labour Organisation Committee of Experts, monitoring ILO Member States’ compliance with international labour standards.
In December 2002 she received a Lifetime Achievement Award from Liberty and JUSTICE for her commitment to equality and human rights.
2001 – 2004 she was Chair of the Board of Interights, the international human rights organisation established to promote the effective use of human rights law to protect rights and freedoms world-wide, in co-operation with lawyers, NGOs and judges.

Looks to me like the judge was just doing her job, applying the law.

Judgement here -> http://www.pprune.org/passengers-slf...ml#post5389281

Yes but according to Crew Forum as quoted on here she spends her time felating the BA management thats why she found in BAs favour.
Just about sums up the Kevin and Perry style mentality of the lemmings in BASSA. Stick to XFactor and Big Bruvva.Youll have plenty of time to watch it on the dole. Come on Willie sack the lot. One thousand at a time . Easily replaced with good crew on the dole through no fault of their own. tha will focus their tiny tabloid teenage minds.

[malcolmf]

I've been with BA for 23 years now and have worked both Short and Long haul, on all aircraft except the Airbus and 737.
The perception from my side of the fence is that BASSA have historically been too intent on running the airline. The situation always seems to be "The answers No, now what's the question?" We have the ludicrous situation of crew calling BASSA reps during a delay situation and the DOMs deferring to them. Also BASSA apparently deciding on service routines.
I am sure that others will correct me, but CC working practices don't seem to have changed in all the years I've been here.
Some things that could have been negotiated away without too much pain:
Disruption agreement, legal minimum
New hourly rate allowance system (when we changed over we had 17 clerks to administer it, now we have 2 and my pay varies by only 10% each month)
Get rid of the box system in favour of an average per year. (stops the situation arriving in SIN two days ago and being 1 min into the next box £3000 extra for the crew) Also gets rid of the corruption.
Rostering to the same trips as F/C so get rid of a whole department
Bring in our eMaestro system so crew could swap trips or pick up extra work without involving Ops.
Get rid of MBTR over 3 local nights, this was appropriate when flying hours weren't limited but now is no longer needed with a 900 hour limit. (that could be pro rated by agreement for part time but you could still pick up extra work)

There are probably many others but you get my drift.

[Cherwell]

Vino Collapso

For an 8 day holiday should we risk it with BA or loose holiday time by changing to another airline?

I understand your predicament as it is one that I faced myself. In my case my booking was non changeable and non refundable. If it wasn't, I would have changed to another airline. I am so relieved that the injunction was granted.

Whatever the issues are in BA, I don't understand how the unions can't see that the airline losing even more money than it is already will further their cause. They are killing the golden goose!

[Mallorcaman]

All is forgiven and forgotten

Received this letter this morning to my surprise ( I have only been a BA executive member for 2 weeks) I am booked to fly next week to Canada via heathrow

Thank you for your patience and support.

We would like to thank you for your patience and continued support during the recent period of uncertainty caused by the threat of industrial action. We understand the anxiety this may have caused you, especially given the time of year.

As an Executive Club member you are very important to us, and we hope 25,000 bonus BA Miles will go some way to show our appreciation for your support & loyalty during this difficult time. There is nothing you need to do to claim these bonus miles, they will be automatically added to your account after you have taken your flights.

Please accept these BA Miles as a gesture of goodwill.

[ArthurScargill]

ROMANS:

Romans said:

Bronx with all due respect I don't think u know what u are talking about.
There is nothing wrong with people earning good salaries after 20/30/40 years of service.
Some people in my company earn up to 64.000 pounds in one month, not in one year, in one month but of course you wouldn't know this either.
This has never been about money, we even offered a pay cut. Please try and get your facts straight before accusing people.

You see Romans, the people who are pulling the strings - for them its ALL about money.
BASSA have LOST money due to the reduction in mumbers and your BASSA reps (aka La La Lady) have been fleecing the company for years and have finally been caught out. Do you think if they weren't being hit so hard personally and it was the guys at your end (or LGW, or MAN, etc...) they'd be fighting your corner ?
Don't kid yourself Romans, its ALL about money. MAybe not yours and thats why you should be worried. You've been publicly humiliated by those you blindly follow and yet youre ready to do it again ? I'm starting to think we'd be better off sacking any YES voters and dealing with the legal consequences later.

[henkybaby]

To all pro strike BA CC

Dear Union Members,

To all who have defended and are still defending industrial action to protect your job entitlements: I salute you (in principle). I do not agree with you but I can admire people with conviction and I respect you for defending your point of view in such a hostile environment. The discussions have not always been fair (on both sides) and it is and will for always remain impossible to change peoples emotional decisions with logical reasoning. This thread can easily reach a 1000 pages without us ever seeing eye to eye.

It is a great thing you are this passionate about your job and about the company. A company you care deeply about since the reason for the original ballot (according to your union) is:

Unite says this will inevitably damage customer service and hit the brand, possibly leaving it beyond repair.

I agree that it would be very bad for the company if that happened. It would leave you without a job and us without an airline. We are all in agreement that this should never happen. You must have realized by now that the passengers are willing to accept the lower service levels given that we are in a crisis.

I think (and hope) that the 93% of the crew who voted yes to protect the brand were shocked to see how Unite decided to "protect the brand". I think even the most die hard supporter of the strike must admit it has hurt BA, part of which is you. Never forget you are BA.

The tone of the workers has also changed. Now the tone of voice is that you were out to hurt BA (and thus yourselves) in the worst way possible (hence 12 days at x-mass) and you are happy that the threat of a future strike may lead to many cancellations. What you originally campaigned against has now become your threat to BA (including yourself):

Unite says this will inevitably damage customer service and hit the brand, possibly leaving it beyond repair.

You who are in favor of empowering the workforce have my support. Worker involvement in the running of a company is a very good thing and will always lead to a better organization. Management alone cannot do it. It may even have been wrong of BA senior management to not discuss the proposed changes with you. They need you, the client facing side of BA, to help. So yes, things need to change. You need representation at management level. You need to be involved in management decisions. In the Netherlands we use workers councils for that and that works. That way you can be pro-active instead of reactive. Fight for that!

So, my request to all you who want to protect your job and the brand BA is to put pressure on your senior representatives, your union and your management to create a way in which you can be more involved in the running of the company instead of driving it into the ground. Continuing down this road and fighting this one battle will only have one effect:

(it) will inevitably damage customer service and hit the brand, possibly leaving it beyond repair.

Please look beyond this point. Negotiate. If your worry is that the changes will cut off your prospects of career or that customer service will lead to passenger leaving the airline then agree to them in return for better participation in management. Get involved in improving the company, not just in protecting your current T&Cs.

Thanks for reading.

[TOM100]

Romans44

It's good to have you on here offering a different viewpoint.

I must say though, I do think it is a little rich for BASSA/UNITE to bleat on about negotiation not confrontation etc etc when it was BASSA, on a show of hands at a raceground mass meeting, who decided some time ago that "there would be no further negotiation with BA" or words along those lines. It does seem a little hypocritical.......

[deeceethree]

A Lurker

.... in the meantime I will carry on as I have done for years and years providing exceptional customer service to all the passengers I carry as I have done for all of my working career - that includes being a trainer in Cranebank and having an Award for Excellence

Good example of a bugle-blowing! The airline carries passengers, the cabin crew provide the 'in-flight customer experience', what ever that is. Since we can't vouch for your alleged "exceptional service", training qualifications or awards, it is unlikely you have impressed anyone by mentioning them. Pride often comes before a fall

Desertia

Have BALPA considered opening a CC section? After all, these seem to be many of you with a similar view to engaging the company and working with them. (Plus, you can charge them a tenner a month, it's good money you know, ask Lizanne and Len).

Whilst, at first glance, it might seem a good idea, it is not one that I would support. My position is not intended to offend all the obviously sensible cabin crew on this forum, who have recognised BASSA for pathetic body that it is. It is just that I believe BALPA should concentrate its resources on pilots and flight engineers. In any event, I am not sure that many cabin crew would wish to subscribe 1% of their salary to a professional union - yes, that is what it costs to get professional representation. Have any BASSA members ever queried why their subs are the same for the lowest earner all the way up to the highest earner? It is obvious to everyone else - BASSA is a cosy club run by the top earners for the top earners - you should have a think about that.

[spin_doctor]

Honestly I'm not even sure it's worth bothering with this thread anymore. Even when the evidence against BASSA becomes overwhelming it seems that the members just refuse to see it.

Now we have a conspiracy involving BA management, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, The Mail, a High Court judge, UNITE officials and the general public - all of them intent on bringing down BASSA.

As one mother said watching her child in a parade "Oh look, my boy is the only one marching in step".

To quote Occam:

the simplest explanation or strategy tends to be the best one

Is the rest of the world to blame or is it BASSA?

[AlpineSkier]

@romans44

You write that 91% of the crew think BA is dishonest ( presumably derived from the 91% in favour of IA which is not the same thing at all ).

In that case - this a direct question - would you not agree that your union was being dishonest and manipulative with you by not specifying on the ballot that they wanted a 12 day strike over Xmas* ( note *, henkybaby )

I say that they were being dishonest because they knew when publishing the ballot what they were aiming for ( one of the Unite bosses said the strike-terms were a surprise , but were made by the team negotiating with BA as that was what was required to force a surrender )

I added the word manipulative because I absolutely believe they missed out these little details knowing they would dramatically reduce the "Yes" vote.

Is it not far, far worse that you are lied to and manipulated by your union than by your employers ( although I don't know what that refers to) ?

The language used by idol detent was strong and not usual on this forum and , in my opinion, not justified, but then I didn't use it.

As for idol intent, in spite of his literary leanings, he does not know his similes ( note spelling ) from his metaphors and needs to study his grammar on homonyms before the next lesson . 5/10 can do better.