British Airways - CC Industrial Relations Mk VI
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,812
Received 137 Likes
on
64 Posts
To perhaps add a little light relief in this difficult time, I would note that in about 5 minutes England will be playing Scotland at Murrayfield. "The auld enemy" has a slight reflection of the situation beween Unite/BASSA and BA.
Two implacable enemies.
Scotland v. England.
or
The 'Working Man/Woman' v. 'Big Business'.
The difference will be seen later, when the match is over and EVERYONE shakes hands with their opponents. If ONLY real life was like that, especially with the tragic BA dispute.
[Mods, I hope that input is not deemed out of order. If so, my apologies].
Two implacable enemies.
Scotland v. England.
or
The 'Working Man/Woman' v. 'Big Business'.
The difference will be seen later, when the match is over and EVERYONE shakes hands with their opponents. If ONLY real life was like that, especially with the tragic BA dispute.
[Mods, I hope that input is not deemed out of order. If so, my apologies].
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can anyone clear this up please?
Will BA run the reduced schedule between strike dates and merely not roster the strikers during this time? The wording the ESS mail from BF seems to hint towards this.
I feel it would be pointless trying to get a full schedule going again for just a few days between strikes.
Would this be a legal approach to take?
Will BA run the reduced schedule between strike dates and merely not roster the strikers during this time? The wording the ESS mail from BF seems to hint towards this.
I feel it would be pointless trying to get a full schedule going again for just a few days between strikes.
Would this be a legal approach to take?
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA? Fail?
It would never be allowed to fail.
GB Ltd must have, and be seen to have a global carrier.
But a change of management and or owner? Why not?
Nationalisation even.
Most who are employed by BA at this time would probably fear both.
But as someone who has watched BA over many years, I cannot really see a problem.
The people, the aircraft, the infrastrtucture, will carry on in some guise or other, as it will remain necessary for people and freight to continue to move around the globe.
But why, necessarily, under the flag of BA?
There has been regular and frequent dissent from one part of the organisation or another over many years. If the culture of the company is as flawed as it appears to be to bring such dssent about, why not let it go, and start afresh? The peole and plant will be there and ready.
Then, perhaps, the travelling public might become free from the constant threat of disruption from one part of the company or another.
CC are taking a battering at the moment, but pilots, for example will remember that they threatened the same effect upon the travelling public.
On this occasion, CC have already brought about significant loss to BA - if they (as intelligent folk who know their own minds, and can, I am sure think for themselves rather than simply follow a perhaps flawed union argument) have TWICE voted overwhelmingly to strike then let them do so.
A company that makes such losses, and is, it seems, riddled with dissent from one part or another is hardly something for GB Ltd to be proud of.
Bring on Change.
It would never be allowed to fail.
GB Ltd must have, and be seen to have a global carrier.
But a change of management and or owner? Why not?
Nationalisation even.
Most who are employed by BA at this time would probably fear both.
But as someone who has watched BA over many years, I cannot really see a problem.
The people, the aircraft, the infrastrtucture, will carry on in some guise or other, as it will remain necessary for people and freight to continue to move around the globe.
But why, necessarily, under the flag of BA?
There has been regular and frequent dissent from one part of the organisation or another over many years. If the culture of the company is as flawed as it appears to be to bring such dssent about, why not let it go, and start afresh? The peole and plant will be there and ready.
Then, perhaps, the travelling public might become free from the constant threat of disruption from one part of the company or another.
CC are taking a battering at the moment, but pilots, for example will remember that they threatened the same effect upon the travelling public.
On this occasion, CC have already brought about significant loss to BA - if they (as intelligent folk who know their own minds, and can, I am sure think for themselves rather than simply follow a perhaps flawed union argument) have TWICE voted overwhelmingly to strike then let them do so.
A company that makes such losses, and is, it seems, riddled with dissent from one part or another is hardly something for GB Ltd to be proud of.
Bring on Change.
Last edited by Flyluke; 13th Mar 2010 at 17:08. Reason: typo
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would never be allowed to fail.
Virgin and every other privately owned carrier would hit the roof if the government started a nationalised BA. They're not nearly as important as the banks to the economy. BA can and may yet fail.
Wake up.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Night Stops
There is a simple reason why night-stops will not be reduced or cancelled. It would be impossible to get an aircraft out early enough to hit the UK early enough in the morning for the business people to do a full day's work. BA would not have a viable business schedule, would lose the high yield traffic to the competition and this would mean you would have no viable route. So cancelling a night-stop on most European short-hauls effectively means cancelling the route.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 1,608
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If BA were nationalised, the EU, the US DoJ and all the competition would hit the roof, in addition to ruining the oneWorld alliance, which is the only chance the company has of long-term survival.
Chances are nil. Time to move on.
Moot point unless BA were to gain an extensive INTRA-European network, something it missed out on in selling Go. Even post-Iberia merger, Germany would be entirely left to Lufthansa to fly in those high-yielding bankers each morning.
Chances are nil. Time to move on.
There is a simple reason why night-stops will not be reduced or cancelled. It would be impossible to get an aircraft out early enough to hit the UK early enough in the morning for the business people to do a full day's work. BA would not have a viable business schedule, would lose the high yield traffic to the competition and this would mean you would have no viable route. So cancelling a night-stop on most European short-hauls effectively means cancelling the route.
the lunatic fringe
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Everywhere
Age: 67
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Willie Walsh writes in today's (Saturday, March 13) Daily Mail Newspaper: I post this so that our Cabin Crew who may have missed it, can read it.
“So we are here again. Unite’s relentless insistence on Groundhog Day amounts to another cold-blooded threat to the travel plans of hundreds of thousands of innocent people trying to pursue normal lives.
Unite does not care about ordinary people. It regards the travelling public as expendable victims in its blinkered efforts to improve what is already an extremely fair package for cabin crew, especially in the very difficult financial circumstances British Airways faces.
Let’s focus on the essentials. In the worst recession for 80 years, British Airways is heading for a second year of record annual losses. Our revenue will be down £1 billion this year, and we cannot hope to build a sustainable airline for the future unless we cut costs.
Many thousands of British Airways staff understand this. Our pilots and engineers agreed to efficiencies months ago. A third of our managers volunteered for redundancy. And nearly 7,000 colleagues put their hands up for temporary pay cuts because they wanted to help our company in its time of need.
They understand that British Airways has no God-given right to exist. They understand that if you don’t adapt to the changing world in which you operate, you are heading for the history books. Look at Japan Airlines. A flag-carrying stalwart of global aviation for decades, which plunged into bankruptcy in January.
Yet Unite, to which our cabin crew belong, refuses to get the message. It prefers to believe the earth is flat.
It believes nothing changes. That economies go on growing forever. That competition does not increase. That practices born in the cosy, nationalised industries of 40 years ago must be preserved in the global economic swirl of today.
We have been talking to Unite for more than a year about ways of reducing cabin crew costs. In all that time, the union has offered no more than temporary palliatives or grand headline figures with negligible substance.
Everyone knows that British Airways cabin crew are the best rewarded in the UK industry. According to the Civil Aviation Authority, the costs of British Airways crew are twice those of their Virgin Atlantic counterparts.
Nonetheless, we have put together a package that involves no pay cut for existing crew.
After nine months of fruitless talks with Unite about reducing crew numbers, we went ahead last October with accepting requests from 1,000 crew for voluntary redundancy and from another 3,000 crew for switches to part-time working.
To accommodate these requests, we made a modest reduction in our onboard crew numbers on flights from Heathrow. On a 747, for example, we trimmed the complement of crew from 15 to 14. And we now include the crew supervisor in the cabin routines to maintain customer service levels.
These are the changes Unite tried to reverse through legal action – despite the fact that for years it has agreed to operate our flights from Gatwick with equivalent numbers.
The High Court rejected Unite’s arguments. It ruled that our changes had not breached crews’ contracts, were reasonable and implemented properly.
The judge also drew attention to the difficulties of dealing with Unite because of the “mutual rivalry, hostility and mistrust” between officials of its two founding unions, the Transport and General Workers and Amicus. Negotiations were twice held up for days because representatives of the two factions would not sit in the same room.
The changes to onboard crew numbers would save us more than £60m a year. In the talks at the TUC, Unite came up with ideas for alternative savings that fell a long way short of this figure.
We made clear at the TUC that we were ready to be flexible and would consider refinements of the changes, provided any additional cost was offset by other adjustments in the cabin crew budget. That offer was conditional on Unite not naming strike dates – so they have invalidated the offer themselves.
British Airways cabin crew are rightly renowned for their professionalism and skills – and I do not believe that they want to wage war on our customers. They have been cynically misled by Unite. And many often feel reluctant to stand up to Unite’s militant activists for fear of being excluded when on trips to an unfamiliar city or culture.
There is no need for Unite to carry out its latest threat. We remain available for further talks at any time. If Unite shows realism and commitment, I believe a settlement can be reached.
But if Unite thinks a strike will ground this airline, it will be disappointed. The flag will continue to fly. We will run a full operation from London City airport. At Gatwick, we plan to fly all our long-haul services and some short-haul. And at Heathrow, we plan to operate significant numbers of long-haul flights and, with the help of chartered aircraft and crews, short-haul services too.
I will not allow Unite to ruin this company. I will not allow it to frustrate our plans to come through this recession, strengthen our business and improve services for customers and opportunities for all staff. That is what Unite wants to wreck. I am absolutely determined that it will fail.”
“So we are here again. Unite’s relentless insistence on Groundhog Day amounts to another cold-blooded threat to the travel plans of hundreds of thousands of innocent people trying to pursue normal lives.
Unite does not care about ordinary people. It regards the travelling public as expendable victims in its blinkered efforts to improve what is already an extremely fair package for cabin crew, especially in the very difficult financial circumstances British Airways faces.
Let’s focus on the essentials. In the worst recession for 80 years, British Airways is heading for a second year of record annual losses. Our revenue will be down £1 billion this year, and we cannot hope to build a sustainable airline for the future unless we cut costs.
Many thousands of British Airways staff understand this. Our pilots and engineers agreed to efficiencies months ago. A third of our managers volunteered for redundancy. And nearly 7,000 colleagues put their hands up for temporary pay cuts because they wanted to help our company in its time of need.
They understand that British Airways has no God-given right to exist. They understand that if you don’t adapt to the changing world in which you operate, you are heading for the history books. Look at Japan Airlines. A flag-carrying stalwart of global aviation for decades, which plunged into bankruptcy in January.
Yet Unite, to which our cabin crew belong, refuses to get the message. It prefers to believe the earth is flat.
It believes nothing changes. That economies go on growing forever. That competition does not increase. That practices born in the cosy, nationalised industries of 40 years ago must be preserved in the global economic swirl of today.
We have been talking to Unite for more than a year about ways of reducing cabin crew costs. In all that time, the union has offered no more than temporary palliatives or grand headline figures with negligible substance.
Everyone knows that British Airways cabin crew are the best rewarded in the UK industry. According to the Civil Aviation Authority, the costs of British Airways crew are twice those of their Virgin Atlantic counterparts.
Nonetheless, we have put together a package that involves no pay cut for existing crew.
After nine months of fruitless talks with Unite about reducing crew numbers, we went ahead last October with accepting requests from 1,000 crew for voluntary redundancy and from another 3,000 crew for switches to part-time working.
To accommodate these requests, we made a modest reduction in our onboard crew numbers on flights from Heathrow. On a 747, for example, we trimmed the complement of crew from 15 to 14. And we now include the crew supervisor in the cabin routines to maintain customer service levels.
These are the changes Unite tried to reverse through legal action – despite the fact that for years it has agreed to operate our flights from Gatwick with equivalent numbers.
The High Court rejected Unite’s arguments. It ruled that our changes had not breached crews’ contracts, were reasonable and implemented properly.
The judge also drew attention to the difficulties of dealing with Unite because of the “mutual rivalry, hostility and mistrust” between officials of its two founding unions, the Transport and General Workers and Amicus. Negotiations were twice held up for days because representatives of the two factions would not sit in the same room.
The changes to onboard crew numbers would save us more than £60m a year. In the talks at the TUC, Unite came up with ideas for alternative savings that fell a long way short of this figure.
We made clear at the TUC that we were ready to be flexible and would consider refinements of the changes, provided any additional cost was offset by other adjustments in the cabin crew budget. That offer was conditional on Unite not naming strike dates – so they have invalidated the offer themselves.
British Airways cabin crew are rightly renowned for their professionalism and skills – and I do not believe that they want to wage war on our customers. They have been cynically misled by Unite. And many often feel reluctant to stand up to Unite’s militant activists for fear of being excluded when on trips to an unfamiliar city or culture.
There is no need for Unite to carry out its latest threat. We remain available for further talks at any time. If Unite shows realism and commitment, I believe a settlement can be reached.
But if Unite thinks a strike will ground this airline, it will be disappointed. The flag will continue to fly. We will run a full operation from London City airport. At Gatwick, we plan to fly all our long-haul services and some short-haul. And at Heathrow, we plan to operate significant numbers of long-haul flights and, with the help of chartered aircraft and crews, short-haul services too.
I will not allow Unite to ruin this company. I will not allow it to frustrate our plans to come through this recession, strengthen our business and improve services for customers and opportunities for all staff. That is what Unite wants to wreck. I am absolutely determined that it will fail.”
Join Date: May 2008
Location: London
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Skipness,
I am not sure that our National position compares with those of the airlines you mention, therefore I fdo not agree that BA would be allowed to fail.
In its current form, at least.
I am not sure that our National position compares with those of the airlines you mention, therefore I fdo not agree that BA would be allowed to fail.
In its current form, at least.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juan
Apologies for the usual disdain that runs through this thread. And the amazing assertion that you deserve it - [nice one WASCREW
]
I feel it's easier to debate points rather than bombard someone the moment they stick their head above the parapet.
Although having no access to the Crewforum, I imagine there are similar greetings for anyone who dares question the union's view.
If you are here to debate the merits of the union's case feel free. But you'll find that you'll need some facts rather than soundbites. Some of us feel that the reason the crew want to strike is because they believe everything BASSA say, rather than actually considering the arguments of both sides.
Can you explain why the crew feel the need to go on strike, apart from BASSA telling them?
It's rare to have people from the other side of the debate on this forum, so can we please give them a chance?
Who knows how many lurkers we have on this thread?
Is it not better to convince than alienate?
Apologies for the usual disdain that runs through this thread. And the amazing assertion that you deserve it - [nice one WASCREW
]I feel it's easier to debate points rather than bombard someone the moment they stick their head above the parapet.
Although having no access to the Crewforum, I imagine there are similar greetings for anyone who dares question the union's view.
If you are here to debate the merits of the union's case feel free. But you'll find that you'll need some facts rather than soundbites. Some of us feel that the reason the crew want to strike is because they believe everything BASSA say, rather than actually considering the arguments of both sides.
Can you explain why the crew feel the need to go on strike, apart from BASSA telling them?
It's rare to have people from the other side of the debate on this forum, so can we please give them a chance?
Who knows how many lurkers we have on this thread?
Is it not better to convince than alienate?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Cyprus
Age: 76
Posts: 270
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you have to look at the numbers, say there are 20 European nightstops with Hotac at circa £2000, per day. (1 crew in & one crew out per station.) X 365 days pa.that is a cost of about £15M pa.
At Lgw they have a wave of dept at about 0700 most of which have returned to base by 1100. If the same was adopted at Lhr then most of these incomming pax to Lhr would be in time to catch the second dept to most of the US cities, + India & the Far East. The final dept into Europe at the end of the day would not be a problem as most leave Lhr at about 1900 or after, with time for the a/c to return to Lhr before say 2300. For the really early birds from Europe into Lhr then our code share partners would pick up the slack, surely thats what code sharing is all about.
This is I believe is a sensible way to plan the future.
re a/c parking, basically BA could now plan with an inventory of say 25% less a/c, further saving costs. Easyjet & Ryanair are making money with less a/c & higher utilization,so could BA
I believe the much trumpeted low cabin crew costs at Lgw are largely as a result of having virtually no night stops in Europe.
At Lgw they have a wave of dept at about 0700 most of which have returned to base by 1100. If the same was adopted at Lhr then most of these incomming pax to Lhr would be in time to catch the second dept to most of the US cities, + India & the Far East. The final dept into Europe at the end of the day would not be a problem as most leave Lhr at about 1900 or after, with time for the a/c to return to Lhr before say 2300. For the really early birds from Europe into Lhr then our code share partners would pick up the slack, surely thats what code sharing is all about.
This is I believe is a sensible way to plan the future.
re a/c parking, basically BA could now plan with an inventory of say 25% less a/c, further saving costs. Easyjet & Ryanair are making money with less a/c & higher utilization,so could BA
I believe the much trumpeted low cabin crew costs at Lgw are largely as a result of having virtually no night stops in Europe.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Massachusetts Bay Colony
Age: 57
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BA govenment bailout will not happen
Just to put to rest anyone's idea that the government would not let BA fail and would bail them out, when I was a senior manager at BA after 9/11, Rod Eddington asked that very question of the government and was told, in no uncertain terms, that BA and all UK airlines were on their own - succeed or fail as you and the market dictate. There would be NO government assistance.
Times have changed in the 9 years since, but the Government hasn't.
If BA is not a viable company on it's own, then it will be allowed to go to the wall. Do not think the government is going to bail you out.
Times have changed in the 9 years since, but the Government hasn't.
If BA is not a viable company on it's own, then it will be allowed to go to the wall. Do not think the government is going to bail you out.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: London
Posts: 252
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've just had a look at the BA proposal ''The Way Forward'' that was posted on here many pages back and I cannot even see what is so bad? It is hardly any different to the Unite proposal. Infact the Unite proposal in many ways is worse - it contains a paycut for us current crew.
Am I missing something?? I need it pointing out to me? Why are Unite finding the need to go on strike over that?
Unbelievable! They (Unite) are even more of a joke than I thought!
Am I missing something?? I need it pointing out to me? Why are Unite finding the need to go on strike over that?
Unbelievable! They (Unite) are even more of a joke than I thought!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eu law forbids nationalising airlines. Thats why sabena, olympic, swiss and others have folded.
BA is no different. This government and any future government CANT help is my understanding of the situation.
BA is no different. This government and any future government CANT help is my understanding of the situation.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Bath Road
Posts: 266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Way Forward
SlideBustle
I can think of several reasons as to why BASSA did not accept BA's latest proposal - here are a few of them:
1. Crew members not being put back - BASSA keeps insisting that they should be put back as a matter of principle - otherwise BA will keep on imposing things in the future.
2. The piece regarding New Fleet is too fuzzy - no clausul which prevents existing crew from being starved from work.
3. Disruption Agreement - Chairman will lose control of this agreement and not be able to approve it or not as the case is today - some crew are also convinced that BA will keep introducing the DA on a weekly basis which would mean no fixed roster.
Why can't BASSA accept that having a crew member removed saves £60 million? It's beyond me that they are willing to suggest further pay cuts to have crew members put back - disgusting.
BASSA should also in a couple of days publish their own "interpretation" of BA's proposal - The Way Forward - apparently BASSA belives their members could not possibly understand the original proposal - keep your eyes open!
I can think of several reasons as to why BASSA did not accept BA's latest proposal - here are a few of them:
1. Crew members not being put back - BASSA keeps insisting that they should be put back as a matter of principle - otherwise BA will keep on imposing things in the future.
2. The piece regarding New Fleet is too fuzzy - no clausul which prevents existing crew from being starved from work.
3. Disruption Agreement - Chairman will lose control of this agreement and not be able to approve it or not as the case is today - some crew are also convinced that BA will keep introducing the DA on a weekly basis which would mean no fixed roster.
Why can't BASSA accept that having a crew member removed saves £60 million? It's beyond me that they are willing to suggest further pay cuts to have crew members put back - disgusting.
BASSA should also in a couple of days publish their own "interpretation" of BA's proposal - The Way Forward - apparently BASSA belives their members could not possibly understand the original proposal - keep your eyes open!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nightstops
Given the nature of the financial crisis that BA are going through, despite UNITE's attempts to make us think this is just a "blip", I think that if BA thought that cutting out night-stops would save them money it would already have been implemented. Attempts at armchair quarterbacking important business decisions is the nature of these forums but we do it mainly from assumed data. Losing £400 million is a pretty strong incentive to cut costs, if the night-stop idea is so self evidently a big cost saver, or indeed a small cost saver I'm sure it would already have been done.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A little more flesh on the bones concerning what BA expect to operate:
BA will fly on despite strikes, says Willie Walsh - Telegraph
BA will fly on despite strikes, says Willie Walsh - Telegraph
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: 35,000 ft
Posts: 468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone please explain how, at 1100 am, an offer that “falls short of what we believe is needed to address the legitimate concerns” and which Unite “are unable to recommend”
becomes, within a matter of hours
“an offer that could possibly have ended the dispute”.?
http://uniteba.com/COSTSAVINGTALKSPAGE2.html
becomes, within a matter of hours
“an offer that could possibly have ended the dispute”.?
http://uniteba.com/COSTSAVINGTALKSPAGE2.html
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns,
I may be wrong about this, so I stand to be corrected, but thought that what EU laws banned was for goverments to help companies by funding them or giving them public money. The fact that a goverment nationalises a company by becoming the main shareholder, as far as i know (and I repeat I'm not 100% sure), is legal, as we have seen with the "nationalising" of the struggling banks.
I must say (and I believe I am not going to become very popular), that I am left wing, socialist and trade unionist. I must also say I haven't seen such a poor and, to be honest, useless, trade union performance in my whole career! First they get all the public hate and disagreement they can collect, then, when they have a strong mandate, they use it to manufacture the worst scheduled and antipopular industrial action they could think of, instead of using it as what it is: a bargaining legitimation to show the commitement of the members to strong negotiation. Then BA (which was in a very stubborn and childish position of "not a penny less" instead of negotiating), decides to negotiate, obviously, as they have the possibility of IA (and the board of directors are not immune, they would be responsible in front of the investors of any disastrous consecuence of their actions, so they cannot just "want a strike"), and decides to scale down their demands, making some significant changes (the most significant being the transition from "new terms and conditions for newly recruited and NEWLY PROMOTED crew" to "the possibility of current CC to get promoted with their existing T&Cs), and when, to all trade unionist logic, there was a more than possible agreement suitable for both sides, with the commitement of the company to future negotiations on single issues, and the end of this dispute to the most balanced outcome, A SINGLE PERSON, who is in a position of responsibility in the negotiation, decides unilaterally throw the toys out of the pram and call for industrial action!!
Honestly, some union leaders think they are in a political party, and for some of them, socialism hasn't evolved in the last 150 years!!! Go fight for the rights of your employees, that's your mandate, and if you want to do politics, go join a political party. I would immediately call for the resignation of this wannabe if he was in my negotiating team. I would never allow my members to be used as pawns in a political fight for someone´s personal career!
The ballot for the BA proposals, without the union recommending wheter or not to accept it, would have been the natural end for this dispute, with the best balanced agreement for everyone involved and no drastic repercussions for the foreseeable future. This has all gone down the drain for what I think is a personal struggle for power. If you are a true trade unionist, you don't defend ANYTHING that comes from a trade union, you are critical and, most importantly, denounce corruption, the cancer of trade unionism.
Rant over, sorry.
I may be wrong about this, so I stand to be corrected, but thought that what EU laws banned was for goverments to help companies by funding them or giving them public money. The fact that a goverment nationalises a company by becoming the main shareholder, as far as i know (and I repeat I'm not 100% sure), is legal, as we have seen with the "nationalising" of the struggling banks.
I must say (and I believe I am not going to become very popular), that I am left wing, socialist and trade unionist. I must also say I haven't seen such a poor and, to be honest, useless, trade union performance in my whole career! First they get all the public hate and disagreement they can collect, then, when they have a strong mandate, they use it to manufacture the worst scheduled and antipopular industrial action they could think of, instead of using it as what it is: a bargaining legitimation to show the commitement of the members to strong negotiation. Then BA (which was in a very stubborn and childish position of "not a penny less" instead of negotiating), decides to negotiate, obviously, as they have the possibility of IA (and the board of directors are not immune, they would be responsible in front of the investors of any disastrous consecuence of their actions, so they cannot just "want a strike"), and decides to scale down their demands, making some significant changes (the most significant being the transition from "new terms and conditions for newly recruited and NEWLY PROMOTED crew" to "the possibility of current CC to get promoted with their existing T&Cs), and when, to all trade unionist logic, there was a more than possible agreement suitable for both sides, with the commitement of the company to future negotiations on single issues, and the end of this dispute to the most balanced outcome, A SINGLE PERSON, who is in a position of responsibility in the negotiation, decides unilaterally throw the toys out of the pram and call for industrial action!!
Honestly, some union leaders think they are in a political party, and for some of them, socialism hasn't evolved in the last 150 years!!! Go fight for the rights of your employees, that's your mandate, and if you want to do politics, go join a political party. I would immediately call for the resignation of this wannabe if he was in my negotiating team. I would never allow my members to be used as pawns in a political fight for someone´s personal career!
The ballot for the BA proposals, without the union recommending wheter or not to accept it, would have been the natural end for this dispute, with the best balanced agreement for everyone involved and no drastic repercussions for the foreseeable future. This has all gone down the drain for what I think is a personal struggle for power. If you are a true trade unionist, you don't defend ANYTHING that comes from a trade union, you are critical and, most importantly, denounce corruption, the cancer of trade unionism.
Rant over, sorry.
Last edited by Vld1977; 14th Mar 2010 at 01:49.