Missed the Wonker clap trap!

You've obviously been too busy firefighting the despicable actions at the top of the SWP or languishing on the Crew Forum site where no pesky other people have an opposing viewpoint!

But I thought, on another thread, you were a graduate and a manger in Waterside going to lots of high powered meetings where the flight crew were going to 'get what'c coming to them'?

See top paragraph. Lots to discuss on those two forums all with like minded delusionals who can't see the wood for the trees.

And what 'hard earned' pay, terms and conditions would those be? BASSA haven't 'earned' anything. They have maintained a sort of status quo through a combination of threats, bullying and intimidation added to a run of weak management. As soon as someone in the management stands up to BASSA and declares it's time to bring the whole thing into the modern day and accept change and rationalisation, BASSA go off on your hippy trip, 'the nasty men are trying to destroy us' campaign. No they weren't, you destroyed yourselves by stupid, ill conceived and inappropriate action. Don't forget BA wanted to shelve 'columbus' or, as it became Mid Fleet. But BASSA didn't want to talk. Your fault.

As to T's & C's BASSA have just hung on to the coat tails of other groups and declared 'Want that one' when the other groups have finished meaningful negotiations. Happened with pay, happened with pensions, didn't happen with HMRC tax, CC got a higher bill! Now they are doing the same with Holiday Pay! You might want to mention to the mighty BASSA that they need to remove some lines from their cut and paste application as there are variables in there that Legacy fleet don't gget, such as 'hourly flying rate' that you seem to have left in from the original document.

Feel free to come back when the posts on Crewforum and SWP have engendered you with enough 'enlightenment' to take on us nasty ConDem scum. :E

JT, unfortunately your customers DO see this . Wouldnt a private forum be better if this is going to resurface?

Good Evening,

This is an interesting read -

Fighting Back: Resisting Union Busting and Strike Breaking in the BA Dispute (Book) by Keith D. Ewing (2011): Waterstones.com (£8 for union members)

I accept it is a positional book, rather than being impartial, but no more so than the Beecroft Report.

Subjective indeed.

But also evidenced and referenced.

Evidenced by who/what? Most likely one-sided and therefore biased.

Referenced to what? Most likely similar SWP followers thoughts and therefore biased.

It all depends on perspective imo.

A balanced perspective is not something that BASSA or Ewing are renowned for.

All imho.

Most historical facts are 'evidenced and referenced' but generally from the viewpoint of the author coupled with the authors perceptions and predjudice. Also, in general, the histories have written by the victors in the light of the victors. This publication smells of sour grapes and tail chasing.

Someone who has a history of campaigning for the increase of powers of trade unions is hardly going to write a book about the mistakes and fallibilities of the sub branch in the dispute.

I'm sure someone from the CBI or such a similar organisation could write a similair 'evidenced and referenced' tome on the way that BA achieved its required aims in the face of militant Unions.

It all depends upon which side of the coin you believe and, after the despicable behaviour of BASSA during the dispute, I am disinclined to believe Mr Ewing irrespective of how many letters he has after his name or how many weighty, biased publications he has produced at the behest of the SWP.

TopBunk -

Statute law, case law, media and even pprune.

Wirbelsturm -

No doubt the whole episode will be used and have reference to what went on. There will be no universal right, just how it is perceived from each individuals point of view.

I read the book in question and I read the Beecroft report. Both were interesting to read.

Litebulbs,

I agree with you, however Mr Ewings books generally seem to be funded from the pockets of the Redgraves and their, now, rather murky organisation.

Hence my sceptisism.

I can't speak for how the book was funded.

I first saw it on the Institute for Employment Rights, which would obviously set where it is positioned in the debate.

Readers will accept or reject its content.

alpa69
A Captain refused to wait for a QRS, insisting the aircraft doors be closed and the crew operate one short (obviously without payment). Reported to IFCE and Flight Crew Management- the response received was that they believe that the captain was within his rights to override crews’ agreements if, in his opinion, there was a need to do so - No action taken.

By going public some of the "incidents" can be taken in isolation.
In this particular case sometimes you just have to get on with it, commercial pressure, can do, if the Captain waited for the sby and he missed the slot, i would expect to him/her to be in for tea without biscuits.
I can't see you getting much proffesional or public sympathy for this sort of issue bing made public

This judgement says it all really -

Malone & Ors v British Airways Plc [2010] EWCA Civ 1225 (03 November 2010)