British Airways vs. BASSA (Airline Staff Only)
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Difficult decision
It appears to me that there are two choices to be made here.
1. Go to work (and be prepared to work a bit harder) and keep approx. 45,000 people ( triple that number if you count all the ancillary services) employed and with some hope of retaining one's lifestyle, future earnings, respect and credibility, or
2. Go on strike, bring the company to its knees and ruin the lives of thousands of people who have and DO work very hard for their take home pay.
Not a difficult decision after all ?
1. Go to work (and be prepared to work a bit harder) and keep approx. 45,000 people ( triple that number if you count all the ancillary services) employed and with some hope of retaining one's lifestyle, future earnings, respect and credibility, or
2. Go on strike, bring the company to its knees and ruin the lives of thousands of people who have and DO work very hard for their take home pay.
Not a difficult decision after all ?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: nowhere near here
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2. Go on strike, bring the company to its knees and ruin the lives of thousands of people who have and DO work very hard for their take home pay.
2. Go on strike, lose your staff travel and some pay, perhaps spend a bit of time on a rain and windswept picket line, watch while the company carries on more or less without you while ramping up its successful volunteer programme, eventually come back to work and suck it all up or leave (perhaps via a yet to be announced round of compulsory redundancies) and fight it out down the job centre.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: England
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OverFlare, your option 2 is a much better updated view given the companies response and the fact that BA is still flying. However bringing the argument back to basics from 18 months ago the decision is still a no brainer, No 1 works for me.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sunny East Sussex
Age: 49
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With relation to much of last nights discussions, some may like to consider the following excerpt from TULRA 1992 legislation:
Being offloaded may be the least of your worries. This does of course, apply to both sides of the fence, which is why we have all been advising crew to leave this dispute on the ground.
241 Intimidation or annoyance by violence or otherwise
(1) A person commits an offence who, with a view to compelling another person to abstain from doing or to do any act which that person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully and without legal authority—
(a) uses violence to or intimidates that person or his wife or children, or injures his property,
(b) persistently follows that person about from place to place,
(c) hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by that person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof,
(d) watches or besets the house or other place where that person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be, or the approach to any such house or place, or
(e) follows that person with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
(3) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.
(1) A person commits an offence who, with a view to compelling another person to abstain from doing or to do any act which that person has a legal right to do or abstain from doing, wrongfully and without legal authority—
(a) uses violence to or intimidates that person or his wife or children, or injures his property,
(b) persistently follows that person about from place to place,
(c) hides any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by that person, or deprives him of or hinders him in the use thereof,
(d) watches or besets the house or other place where that person resides, works, carries on business or happens to be, or the approach to any such house or place, or
(e) follows that person with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or both.
(3) A constable may arrest without warrant anyone he reasonably suspects is committing an offence under this section.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: England
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SSK here's another one that's very valid..
"On the backs of the discontented shall ye rise to power"
What we need is a leader man enough to get this mess sorted, someone with balls and conviction..ie Maggie
"On the backs of the discontented shall ye rise to power"
What we need is a leader man enough to get this mess sorted, someone with balls and conviction..ie Maggie
Ut Sementem Feeceris
So where does it go from here? WW has not initiated talks - although he has said his door is open. UNTIE/TW appealed to the Board/Chairman who gave him short shrift.
Next strike looms with BA increasing planned schedule due to volunteers and working/returning crew.
WW has stated that volunteer courses continue through April AND May.......
BASSA sending missives to the troops (fodder?) stating that ST, suspensions etc will form part of any negotiations when they know that WW has stated point blank they won't. A bunch of Academics sign a letter containing a blatent untruth which can only have come from one source.
Do the strikers not see that UNITE/BASSA are losing this dispute on every single front? PR, Public support, propaganda, more crew breaking the strike, the board/WW not blinking, the city supporting........ This has been so incredibly misjudged and mismanged by the Union it defies belief.
Where do you think you/BA are going to be in 3 months?
Just trying to stimulate some debate.
A4
Next strike looms with BA increasing planned schedule due to volunteers and working/returning crew.
WW has stated that volunteer courses continue through April AND May.......
BASSA sending missives to the troops (fodder?) stating that ST, suspensions etc will form part of any negotiations when they know that WW has stated point blank they won't. A bunch of Academics sign a letter containing a blatent untruth which can only have come from one source.
Do the strikers not see that UNITE/BASSA are losing this dispute on every single front? PR, Public support, propaganda, more crew breaking the strike, the board/WW not blinking, the city supporting........ This has been so incredibly misjudged and mismanged by the Union it defies belief.
Where do you think you/BA are going to be in 3 months?
Just trying to stimulate some debate.
A4
Join Date: May 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 337
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where do you think you/BA are going to be in 3 months?
After 12 weeks there's no protection, it becomes an illegal strike.
I just don't see what Willie can offer that would satisfy the strikers,
yet still provide the savings.
Mind you, doesn't anyone really know what they want? Or don't want?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After 12 weeks there's no protection, it becomes an illegal strike.
Do the strikers not see that UNITE/BASSA are losing this dispute on every single front? PR, Public support, propaganda, more crew breaking the strike, the board/WW not blinking, the city supporting........
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: England
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Ottergirl
Why is that? Surely UNITE could just re-ballot its members as to whether they wish to pursue the matter further and then serve notice of another set of strikes (or is that too simple?).
Can someone enlighten us to what those rights are?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: LHR
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An employer can dismiss an employee after the 12 week period if the employer can show they have made genuine attempts to negotiate. This must include the proper use of any joint disputes resolution procedure.
As it stands since the dispute began last weekend BA have not made any genuine attempts to negotiate despite being urged to do so by the Union.
As it stands since the dispute began last weekend BA have not made any genuine attempts to negotiate despite being urged to do so by the Union.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: T5
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 weeks is a long time. I have a strong feeling that BA will be a lot more patient than Unite/BASSA and their membership.
this weekend will cause the strikers and the union to have a careful evaluation of the strength of their position.
BA know with some certainty what kind of operation they can mount in the absence of the strikers. BA have planned for this financially, they can last this out for a lot longer than many Unite members' personal finances.
Perhaps the 12 week question is a little academic? can anyone honestly see the Unite members repeat this another 11 times?
Will the obvious tensions within Unite (Woodley/McCluskey) and between BASSA and Unite last 12 weeks before they do something fatally stupid?
this weekend will cause the strikers and the union to have a careful evaluation of the strength of their position.
BA know with some certainty what kind of operation they can mount in the absence of the strikers. BA have planned for this financially, they can last this out for a lot longer than many Unite members' personal finances.
Perhaps the 12 week question is a little academic? can anyone honestly see the Unite members repeat this another 11 times?
Will the obvious tensions within Unite (Woodley/McCluskey) and between BASSA and Unite last 12 weeks before they do something fatally stupid?
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: nowhere near here
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's just a hunch but I don't think BA will aim to sack the strikers - even after 12 weeks. I think they are trying to keep some sort of moral high ground. I'm not sure about the rules on offering new contracts - for instance, BA might say "ok we're not sacking strikers but here's a new fleet contract for them to sign." Personally I don't think they'll even do that although it's worth knowing that, in this case, someone who didn't sign the new contract - and in doing so lost their job, would not have been sacked, they would have resigned. I also believe it's true that noone has successfully launched a case for constructive dismissal in such circumstances, although I can't be sure.
Another hunch: WW and BF have now hinted at the possibility of compulsory redundancy as a result of the strike. There might therefore be a further crew reductions imposed (after all, passengers seem delighted with the service with 8 crew - why not be generous and make it 9 crew?) and some compulsory lay offs, perhaps including all the CSDs whose jobs will not be required and who won't find redeployment opportunities elsewhere in the business since there are no vacancies.
Another hunch: WW and BF have now hinted at the possibility of compulsory redundancy as a result of the strike. There might therefore be a further crew reductions imposed (after all, passengers seem delighted with the service with 8 crew - why not be generous and make it 9 crew?) and some compulsory lay offs, perhaps including all the CSDs whose jobs will not be required and who won't find redeployment opportunities elsewhere in the business since there are no vacancies.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: T5
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems they couldn't wait 12 hours before doing something fatally stupid.
Unite are taking BA to court to claim that staff travel is a contractual right.
I guess Mr Hendy QC could do with a new Aston...
Unite are taking BA to court to claim that staff travel is a contractual right.
I guess Mr Hendy QC could do with a new Aston...
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: M3 usually!
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There might therefore be a further crew reductions imposed (after all, passengers seem delighted with the service with 8 crew - why not be generous and make it 9 crew?) and some compulsory lay offs, perhaps including all the CSDs
Ouch! I know I have a vested interest here but I think the customers are just relieved to be going anywhere this week. The euphoria will wear off if they are expected to shell out thousands of pounds for premium cabin tickets and never receive a hot meal! Ryan air could get away with 8 crew on a 777 and all one cabin but I doubt we could!
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unite are taking BA to court to claim that staff travel is a contractual right.
The result of any such action would be of keen interest to all BA staff regardless of which side of the fence they are on.
thanks