BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Given the lack of accuracy and analysis evidenced in the letter, I subscribe to the 'politically motivated' viewpoint from a single source. I cannot envisage that many 'professors' being so corporately pig-ignorant of FACTS.

I'm glad I decided not to become a professor - I'd be embarrassed to be associated with that title on the basis of that letter.

[call100]

Originally Posted by The SSK

How do 95 people, from - what? - 50 locations around the UK, write a letter? The answer is, they don't. Somebody writes it for them, they just sign it. Presumably the person who wrote it had all their names on a special contact list.

No Kidding?? I guess you missed out the bit that about them reading it first??

Why did BA ignore ACAS and not reconvene the meeting where they withdrew the offer? The Union had agreed to meet at ACAS and call off the strike if this had been done.
ACAS were not happy with WW attitude and remarks made that were incorrect.

The point is that this is the sort of dispute that polarises opinion to the point that the facts get totally distorted. Either in the Media or on sites like this there are comments made that soon become accepted as fact when it's just an opinion.

I have no more flights booked with BA so the dispute has no affect on my travelling. I do think though that the dispute will have far reaching effects through out the country that will impact on everyone and not for the good whichever side you back.....

[Two-Tone-Blue]

@ call100 ... was that the recent meeting [last week] at the TUC [or ACAS] where reportedly WW turned up and Unite didn't? Perhaps that was just another rumour as well; it does get very difficult to sift fact from fiction.

[Runway 31]

Just for my knowledge, is staff travel taxable i.e. a benefit in kind, like milage claimed or use of a leased car through work and who does the original work of a volunteer CC which I presume still requires to be done?.

[just an observer]

Staff travel isn't taxable as it does not cost the employer anything to supply, in fact they make a small profit on otherwise empty seats. This has been tested in the courts. (Not re airline employees specifically, but the principle)

Mileage claimed isn't taxable either if it is business mileage and paid under a certain amount per mile.

[dubh12000]

@call100. You do realise that WW withdrew the offer the moment McLuskey (note McLuskey, not Unite) called the strike? Standard practise as the moment this is done revenue loss due to reduced bookings can now be assigned to the action. WW was dead right, the minute the strike was called the goalposts moved.

[plane speak]

Economist article

The Economist argues that the cabin crew are fighting a losing battle - Willie holds all the cards, and little damage will be done to the brand by the strike.

THE share price says it all. Since the end of last year, shares in strike-hit British Airways have risen in value by nearly a third (see chart). For all the apocalyptic headlines the airline is currently attracting, investors are increasingly confident that BA will win its battle with the cabin staff’s union, Unite, and that when the smoke clears, little if any long-term damage will have been done to its resilient brand.

Full article here

[just an observer]

Back to post 305, I would guess volunteers would be covered in their sections the same way holidays are. Most would have a maximum number that can be off at any one time, if the absence of a volunteer would exceed that, he/she would get used at a more convenient time. Besides, if less aircraft are flying, there are spare pilots, ground crew, handlers etc.

[Runway 31]

Thanks for your reply Just an Observer. Re the tax I would have thought that the benefit of staff travel would have has a sum applied to it by the tax man, they seem to tax every other benefit given. Maybe Mr Darling will have this in mind to help pay for the banks.

I was wondering if the number of volunteers indicated a degree of over staffing but your reply gives a good explanation.

Thanks again

[ExXB]

Latest response from BA:
So there you are! I look forward to see what happens.....

Well done. I've heard that BA's SOP is to offer very little, but as soon as you wave 261/2004 they roll over and play dead.

It will be interesting to see how their refund department calculates the 30% - betcha they don't include your fuel surcharge ...

[Ancient Observer]

Trotskyite Prof.s

Having studied a fair amount of left wing stuff in my time, I thought I ought to point out the political affiliations of the Profs on that letter - all the ones I know are very left wing, and bound to support Unite. I note that no Business School Profs were on the list.

[ExSp33db1rd]

Propaganda is a two edged sword.

and so is loyalty, as those who are so willingly rushing to save the airline now - and understandably so - will find out when w.w. wants them out of the way for some other reason in the future.

The loyalty they are showing now will not be ' money in the bank ' when they want a 'quid pro quo '. Sadly.

[Two-Tone-Blue]

Unsubstantiated from "The Other Thread"

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...

There you go, exspeedbird.
If it all works perfectly, you may have to find a new topic to talk about

[just an observer]

The employment lawyer on 5 live yesterday said that staff travel is agreed non contractual by the unions, as if it were contractual then it would be taxable.

I can't confirm that, bit above my level of knowledge, but if they were to have it agreed as contractual, and it became taxable, CC/BASSA would be even more unpopular in BA generally, as it would affect all staff. Plus Unite act for many BA departments, not just CC. I hope they know what they are doing!!

[just an observer]

Mind you, I agree with baggersup, it would take years in the courts.

But it is apparently only a rumour, from another forum, not PPRuNe. Seems unlikely, for reasons stated above.

[hellsbrink]

12 weeks of IA

Ok, I'm not crew and don't work for BA, but I do hope to get one thing clarified.

Under UK law, does the "12 week rule" apply under 12 weeks of CONTINUOUS industrial action or does 12 weeks of intermittent action (3 days here, 4 days there) mean that then an employer has the additional rights?

I'm not sure at all, but the answer to the above could have an influence on things, not only as far as the IA goes but also with opinions in this and the CC thread.

[jetset lady]

I suspect the Unite lawyers will eventually go to court over this but will use the argument that removing staff travel from the strikers only is discriminating against those taking part in legal industrial action.

I may not have a lot of faith in them but I don't think even they would be daft enough to try the contractual angle.

[call100]

Originally Posted by Two-Tone-Blue

@ call100 ... was that the recent meeting [last week] at the TUC [or ACAS] where reportedly WW turned up and Unite didn't? Perhaps that was just another rumour as well; it does get very difficult to sift fact from fiction.

ACAS were angry that WW had put that out. It was in fact not true......Unite were in constant contact with ACAS over the weekend. No meeting was ever arranged with ACAS.
Over that weekend ACAS asked Unite if BA put the withdrawn offer back on the table would they call off the strike. Unite replied they would.
ACAS then asked BA if it would reinstate it's offer if Unite called off the strikes. BA said they would not.

It is clear there was an opportunity there and BA made the choice not to take it....

To those who think I have some axe to grind I should make it clear that I have nothing but contempt for the leaders of both sides. There is no difference between them. As usual it's the people in the middle that always suffer. If they all pulled their collective necks in and let the negotiators negotiate this would all be over far quicker.

[TrakBall]

Daft

Jetset Lady

"I may not have a lot of faith in them but I don't think even they would be daft enough to try the contractual angle."

Just for the record, considering their last foray into court, you are talking about Unite/BASSA here???

TB

[hellsbrink]

Not sure how they could use "discrimination" of any kind as it was stated well before the strikes started. As has been said, it's not part of the contract, it's a "perk" that can be removed at any time at the whim of the company.

If they, Bassa/Unite, did try to go to court over this I reckon they would get short shrift even if they went down the "constructive dismissal" route at an Industrial Tribunal. Let's face it, BA's lawyers will have made sure that things were water and airtight before allowing the decision to be made.

It's another hiding to nothing, especially with Bassa's track record in the court