BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II
This tactic has serious implications for everyone if not very quickly beaten back down.
But on a serious note, I personally support the removal of ST because in my view, it resulted in a large number of CC working rather than going on strike, thus allowing the airline to keep flying through this ridiculous dispute.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Removasl of staff travel..
I can see where Safety Concerns is coming from and might be tempted to agree where it not for the fact that BA has removed staff travel from groups of workers in the past, albeit for relatively short periods of time. True, it wasn't as a consequence of strike action. The arguement runs thus. Staff travel is a gift from the company and is something the company can rescind at any time and for any reason it sees fit.Employees who behave in a manner calculated to lose the company revenue shall be deemed to have acted contrary to the good of the company and any gift from the company will be rescinded. The penalty is not for going in strike, it is for harming the revenue stream of the organisation.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: LGW
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In regards to ST (sorry to harp on about it), the company has removed it from individuals in the past as a consequence of bad behaviour. Nobody batted an eyelid then so what's different?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no axe to grind in this dispute mainly because I have no idea whats really going on between BASSA and BA. However the staff travel issue is below the belt, uncalled for and my money is on it biting BA back very hard.
Again you should be careful what you wish for. This tactic has serious implications for everyone if not very quickly beaten back down.
Again you should be careful what you wish for. This tactic has serious implications for everyone if not very quickly beaten back down.
However, I think many would argue that this is no ordinary industrial dispute it is the behaviour of BASSA that has been well and truly below the belt.
The industrial action started in response to BA changing the crewing levels on aircraft to achieve costs savings after no less than 9 months of negotiations with BASSA during which (as documented in a High Court judgment) BASSA refused to sit in the same room as the reps from CC89 and there were, in the words of the High Court judge, "heated arguments" between the two factions. Also, the largest accountancy firm in the world found that BASSA's own cost-saving proposals were not even one third of what they claimed.
Many would argue that BASSA's behaviour has been wholly unwarranted and massively disproportionate - not least because the "imposition" that prompted the strike was a direct consequence of its own failings. There can be no clearer evidence of this than the massive response of BA's own unionised workforce to mitigate the impact of the strikes. Has there ever been an industrial dispute where the strikers have been undermined by their own fellow unionised colleagues?
So let's put this another way, if a group of workers inflicts £150m+ of damage to a company which makes changes found by a High Court to be perfectly reasonable when in the teeth of one of the biggest crises in aviation and the near meltdown of the global financial system, should that company continue to provide that group of workers with a generous non-contractual perk?
Who..............are you?
Safety Concerns
As young Roger used to sing, Whooooooooooooooo r u?
You are articulate, not connected with Aviation, and suggesting via implication that you are simply "interested". You have quoted one case without a link to the case.
You do not sound like a bassa apologist.
However, we've been short of bassa folk both on here and on the CC thread, over the last couple of days, so clearly their BFC core team have retreated back to their Berlin bunker so that new instructions can be issued to the poor sods who are instructed to keep the good fight going on PPrune.
My guess is that you've picked the short straw, and been asked by the Heritage bunker crowd and their SWP supporters to find novel ways of fending off those nasty people in pprune who care about customers.
I have a simple response to this whole "perk" debate that bassa are so keen to keep alive.
No-one else in this working world gets free trips to the Caribbean for them selves, their whole family and their mates, FOR FREE.
Just no-one.
So all the legal stuff matters not one-jot. Whilst the Daily Mail might take one approach, and even the Times might become a little Murdoch like with overtures of Murdoch speak, when the Grauniad and the Eye turn against CC - as they now have, that is it. End of. Simples.
Oh, and by the way - the BA action sets no precedent at all for anyone. Let's not have any of this "it's the end of the working class's ability to take industrial action against their oppressors" stuff. It would not be true, and no-one is buying it.
As young Roger used to sing, Whooooooooooooooo r u?
You are articulate, not connected with Aviation, and suggesting via implication that you are simply "interested". You have quoted one case without a link to the case.
You do not sound like a bassa apologist.
However, we've been short of bassa folk both on here and on the CC thread, over the last couple of days, so clearly their BFC core team have retreated back to their Berlin bunker so that new instructions can be issued to the poor sods who are instructed to keep the good fight going on PPrune.
My guess is that you've picked the short straw, and been asked by the Heritage bunker crowd and their SWP supporters to find novel ways of fending off those nasty people in pprune who care about customers.
I have a simple response to this whole "perk" debate that bassa are so keen to keep alive.
No-one else in this working world gets free trips to the Caribbean for them selves, their whole family and their mates, FOR FREE.
Just no-one.
So all the legal stuff matters not one-jot. Whilst the Daily Mail might take one approach, and even the Times might become a little Murdoch like with overtures of Murdoch speak, when the Grauniad and the Eye turn against CC - as they now have, that is it. End of. Simples.
Oh, and by the way - the BA action sets no precedent at all for anyone. Let's not have any of this "it's the end of the working class's ability to take industrial action against their oppressors" stuff. It would not be true, and no-one is buying it.
The Junta from the Bunker
I note that the Ruling Junta from the Bunker have issued new instructions to their jack-booted (and Jimmy choo booted) blitzkrieg leaders. Duncan says
"the strife and hardship you are all currently facing without your staff travel etc."
Yup, he's really concerned about working BA CC like Tira et al, isn't he?
"the strife and hardship you are all currently facing without your staff travel etc."
Yup, he's really concerned about working BA CC like Tira et al, isn't he?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: middle earth
Age: 60
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@Safety Concerns
"There has already been a similar court case although in reverse. The employer offered free flights to all those who continued to work and refused to take part in strike action.
The strike duly finished, the union waited until the first person took up this offer and then successfully went to court on the basis of discrimination to get strikers a free flight as well.
They won apparently because the strikers had done nothing wrong and so the offer of a free flight for some employees and not others was discrimination. "
What court case was this? from a common working stiffs perspective it seems a fair deal.. don't strike and we will give you a non contractual perk for your loyalty.
As opposed I suppose to stike and we will remove your non contractual perk.
I havent heard BA saying anything about the removal of ST being permanent and forever. But BASSA can't negotiate on when or if because of its stated position and harm done to its members who have lost ST.
"There has already been a similar court case although in reverse. The employer offered free flights to all those who continued to work and refused to take part in strike action.
The strike duly finished, the union waited until the first person took up this offer and then successfully went to court on the basis of discrimination to get strikers a free flight as well.
They won apparently because the strikers had done nothing wrong and so the offer of a free flight for some employees and not others was discrimination. "
What court case was this? from a common working stiffs perspective it seems a fair deal.. don't strike and we will give you a non contractual perk for your loyalty.
As opposed I suppose to stike and we will remove your non contractual perk.
I havent heard BA saying anything about the removal of ST being permanent and forever. But BASSA can't negotiate on when or if because of its stated position and harm done to its members who have lost ST.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think too many of you are allowing your anger at Bassa's behaviour to get in the way of some real life realities.
So you get to go to the Caribbean free and? The seat was empty anyway.
Just like bankers get cheap loans, the car industry offers cheap cars, MP's get expenses, there are perks in every walk of life. Maybe 20-30 years ago a trip to the Caribbean was something special, now its relatively normal.
But you are all still missing the point in your haste to beat down the big bad Bassa. The why's and wherefore's of the strike are opinions and nothing more. Bassa believe one thing, it seems the majority here at least believe something else. Dismiss all that for a few seconds and THINK.
You tread a very dangerous path for all, in all airlines by supporting BA in getting away with using a "perk" to in effect, discipline or discriminate against anyone who has taken "legal" industrial action. i.e. done nothing wrong.
And whether you agree or disagree with their industrial action, it is legal and they have done nothing wrong. Don't lose sight of that fact.
It isn't about the strike. The staff travel action goes much further than that.
To be clear:
It has nothing to do with the strike, it has nothing to do with contractual or non contractual, it has to do with punishing individuals who have done nothing wrong. Their crime is to have a different opinion to company management. That's why this has the potential at least to set a very dangerous precedent.
So you get to go to the Caribbean free and? The seat was empty anyway.
Just like bankers get cheap loans, the car industry offers cheap cars, MP's get expenses, there are perks in every walk of life. Maybe 20-30 years ago a trip to the Caribbean was something special, now its relatively normal.
But you are all still missing the point in your haste to beat down the big bad Bassa. The why's and wherefore's of the strike are opinions and nothing more. Bassa believe one thing, it seems the majority here at least believe something else. Dismiss all that for a few seconds and THINK.
You tread a very dangerous path for all, in all airlines by supporting BA in getting away with using a "perk" to in effect, discipline or discriminate against anyone who has taken "legal" industrial action. i.e. done nothing wrong.
And whether you agree or disagree with their industrial action, it is legal and they have done nothing wrong. Don't lose sight of that fact.
It isn't about the strike. The staff travel action goes much further than that.
To be clear:
Oh, and by the way - the BA action sets no precedent at all for anyone. Let's not have any of this "it's the end of the working class's ability to take industrial action against their oppressors" stuff. It would not be true, and no-one is buying it.
Last edited by Safety Concerns; 28th Jul 2010 at 22:23.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if the courts decide that the removal of a non-contractual perk is legal, does that also mean that BA has done nothing wrong?
On the one hand you're saying that as the industrial action is technically legal any points of principle surrounding it should be discarded and CC cannot be deemed to have done anything wrong, but removal staff travel must be opposed on a point of principle.
On the one hand you're saying that as the industrial action is technically legal any points of principle surrounding it should be discarded and CC cannot be deemed to have done anything wrong, but removal staff travel must be opposed on a point of principle.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Somewhere Warm
Age: 71
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns
I agree that this is an emotional issue and has been made so mostly by BASSA. However, I believe that when removal of staff travel was first announced, BA indicated they were doing so in part as a cost saving measure. In other words, those who cost the company revenue and expense would have to shoulder the burden of added cost savings.
Remember, staff travel actually costs BA taxes that have to be paid to HMRC along with catering, fuel and back office expenses.
Given those points, I don't see this as a punishment but as a legitimate way for BA to save costs and fairly allocate those cost saving measures to the employees that directly cost the company money.
TB
I agree that this is an emotional issue and has been made so mostly by BASSA. However, I believe that when removal of staff travel was first announced, BA indicated they were doing so in part as a cost saving measure. In other words, those who cost the company revenue and expense would have to shoulder the burden of added cost savings.
Remember, staff travel actually costs BA taxes that have to be paid to HMRC along with catering, fuel and back office expenses.
Given those points, I don't see this as a punishment but as a legitimate way for BA to save costs and fairly allocate those cost saving measures to the employees that directly cost the company money.
TB
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look, a strike and its consequences are well known. You cannot use that as a basis for claw back.
Even then the who is right and who is wrong is largely opinion. You may believe your right in condemning the strikers and you may well be right that they have it all wrong. But time may also potentially show Bassa to be correct. We can't say today.
So far you are all arguing from the perspective that Bassa are fundamentally wrong and so they deserve all they get. Guilty until proven innocent would be a better term.
But that is missing the point. You allow someone to tinker with perks and use them as a weapon at your peril. There will be no winners here if you are not careful.
@Ancient Observer, Roger was often very vocal and a lot can be gleaned from the lyrics of "won't get fooled again" yet we do, again and again and again and again
Even then the who is right and who is wrong is largely opinion. You may believe your right in condemning the strikers and you may well be right that they have it all wrong. But time may also potentially show Bassa to be correct. We can't say today.
So far you are all arguing from the perspective that Bassa are fundamentally wrong and so they deserve all they get. Guilty until proven innocent would be a better term.
But that is missing the point. You allow someone to tinker with perks and use them as a weapon at your peril. There will be no winners here if you are not careful.
@Ancient Observer, Roger was often very vocal and a lot can be gleaned from the lyrics of "won't get fooled again" yet we do, again and again and again and again
Last edited by Safety Concerns; 28th Jul 2010 at 23:11.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No-one else in this working world gets free trips to the Caribbean for them selves, their whole family and their mates, FOR FREE.
on a slightly different theme, various quotations from legislation and supporting documentation that have appeared on this and the other thread imply that an employer may lock out strikers who attempt to return to work. The only sanction on the employer appears to be that the period during which strike action is protected is extended by the length of the lockout. So sanctions against strikers, including financial sanctions, are permitted. If my reading is correct, there seems to be no case in UK law for the return of discounted travel to strikers, let alone compensation for having to pay full fare to get to work or fly on holiday.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 66
Posts: 1,942
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bearing in mind BA have some outstandingly clever legal folk, just look at their success rate so far, I suspect the ST thing is a complete non starter 
As an aside we are off to Denver on the 3rd Sep any chance of a strike over that period as it would be nice to get a happy crew
As an aside we are off to Denver on the 3rd Sep any chance of a strike over that period as it would be nice to get a happy crew
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns
Oh to have your ability to underline a point. Excellent reading. Many may not agree, but at least the contributors will have to put some effort into reasoning against your points.
It is a debate that has no influence on what is actually going on within the BA community, but I am learning from it.
It is a debate that has no influence on what is actually going on within the BA community, but I am learning from it.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If after their interminable deliberations, the Eurojudges were to decide that 'a trip to the Caribbean' is indeed a Human Right, can we all get one?
There is actually a wider point of law here; the various treaties and agreements that the UK has ratified actually make it clear that taking strike action should be viewed as a suspension of contract rather than a breach of contract. It is an interesting note that for 13 years a Labour government saw fit to do nothing about this failure to comply with the relevant EU legislation on this. A Tory/LibDem government with a stated intent to reassert the supremacy of UK courts over the EU is extremely unlikely to change anything.
As any case that goes upto the ECHR is basically a case of individuals against a state, that state's law's having failed to protect those human rights, BASSA will need to get the government to change it's policy for this approach to work.
There is an interesting case that may have some relevance, that of Danilenkov Vs Russia. The case revolves around discrimination for union activities. Sound familiar? Well Danilenkov et al won, but read the whole thing and you find that the victory was pyrrhic - each of those in the case were awarded 2500 Euros compensation, but never got back their jobs, and the whole thing took several years.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SALISBURY
Age: 76
Posts: 706
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neptunus Rex
Are you the blonde on the right? If so, may I come with you to the Caribbean? It's a long time since we went on detachment together.
Seriously though, having read Holley's latest rant on the CC thread it's obvious that not only is Unite devoid of ideas but so is Bassa!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Deep South, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Done nothing wrong
"discriminate against anyone who has taken "legal" industrial action. i.e. done nothing wrong"
As I understand it, if you go on strike you are in breach of your contract - however you are protected from sanctions by employment law for a number of weeks.
But if you are in breach of your contract, how can you have "done nothing wrong?"
As I understand it, if you go on strike you are in breach of your contract - however you are protected from sanctions by employment law for a number of weeks.
But if you are in breach of your contract, how can you have "done nothing wrong?"
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dublin
Age: 65
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety Concerns #851
I actually agree with you that there is far too much emotion in this debate, and that is clouding judgement. However, the main result is that we see people assuming this matter is going to end up in front of the judiciary at a suitably senior level to produce a precedent-setting decision. I'd suggest you fall into this category too.
This issue will never get anywhere near that stage. As I've noted earlier, BA will settle the issue, probably once they've starved out a lot of commuting strikers. If we are to believe the tales of hardship about striking commuters, then there really are possibly hundreds of crew who will have to leave soon because they cannot afford to get to work. So this issue really does seem to have provided BA with an unexpected benefit, namely managing out a significant number of expensive (and relatively disaffected) staff at zero cost. Once they've actually gone, to be replaced with lower cost staff on New Fleet terms, BA can afford to reach a (financial) settlement with Unite/BASSA. If BA really does not want to reinstate seniority for staff travel, it could always offer cash compensation for its loss to the staff affected. That immediately renders any legal action very much harder to sustain as BA would have implicitly acknowledged the principle behind the Unite/BASSA argument if not necessarily agreed to their preferred means of rectification. You will never get a precedent set simply because one party does not agree with how the other prefers to rectify a breach.
In any case, you seem to forget that BA has actually offered to reinstate staff travel for strikers. They simply will not do so with previous seniority. Therefore the human right that Unite/BASSA really seems to be asserting here is the right to contined preferential treatment in respect of a perk, ie effectively stating that ANY variation to the perk linked to industrial action is a breach of workers' rights. If the Court were to agree to this then I would have to acknowledge how right you are in terms of its impact on employer/employee relationships. Unfortunately there is no precedent to support interference at such a level, and a lot of precedent to suggest the Court will not see it as within its competence to interfere. To do so would imply a degree of intrusiveness in individual agreements way out of line with the intentions of either Parliament or the framers of the ECoHR.
But let's say BA really is as intransigent as you imply, and takes "the bosses" position versus Unite's "the workers" position as a fundamental matter of principle. It duly ends up either at the Supreme Court or ECoHR. "The workers" win. The next question is how will employers generally react? You seem to assume that they'd just accept the result and do nothing. I suspect the reality would be rather different. Either employers would simply withdraw all non-contractual benefits from all staff, hardly a victory for "the workers" generally. Or, more likely in my view, they'd tighten up the language dealing with circumstances in which they may be withdrawn, such that employees acknowledge certain specific cases in which they will no longer qualify for the perk or its terms may be varied (such as engaging in industrial action even when such as action is "legal"). Leaving aside the current dispute, many people (not all of them on "the workers" side of the debate) would welcome greater clarity in certain aspects of employer/employee relations, including discouragement of "at our complete discretion"-type wording in contracts or related documents.
From a financial perspective, it makes no sense for BA to pursue this issue to its ultimate legal conclusion, irrespective of whether or not they believe they'll win. The costs almost certainly exceed any financial settlement they'd have to offer Unite/BASSA to resolve the matter well before then. Again, provided BA made a reasonable offer, then the Court will not entertain a case against them.
Whilst there is a degree of emotion displayed on here, the dispirting fact for Unite/BASSA is there is no such display of emotion from BA. They clearly set out what they wanted to achieve in terms of cost cutting, clearly stated what they would do to undermine any industrial action and the effectiveness they anticipated from their contingency plans, and delivered on it. Everything BA has done to date has been driven by delivering the improved cost base it promised investors. Resolving the staff travel issue will be no different. As and when BA can settle it at lower cost than continuing to oppose Unite/BASSA, and in a way that does not require them to back down on what they now consider the principle of non-return of seniority, they'll take it. This is only a matter of principle to those on one side of the argument.
I am a betting man, and I would take a big bet that this issue will not result in a precedent-setting Court decision.
This issue will never get anywhere near that stage. As I've noted earlier, BA will settle the issue, probably once they've starved out a lot of commuting strikers. If we are to believe the tales of hardship about striking commuters, then there really are possibly hundreds of crew who will have to leave soon because they cannot afford to get to work. So this issue really does seem to have provided BA with an unexpected benefit, namely managing out a significant number of expensive (and relatively disaffected) staff at zero cost. Once they've actually gone, to be replaced with lower cost staff on New Fleet terms, BA can afford to reach a (financial) settlement with Unite/BASSA. If BA really does not want to reinstate seniority for staff travel, it could always offer cash compensation for its loss to the staff affected. That immediately renders any legal action very much harder to sustain as BA would have implicitly acknowledged the principle behind the Unite/BASSA argument if not necessarily agreed to their preferred means of rectification. You will never get a precedent set simply because one party does not agree with how the other prefers to rectify a breach.
In any case, you seem to forget that BA has actually offered to reinstate staff travel for strikers. They simply will not do so with previous seniority. Therefore the human right that Unite/BASSA really seems to be asserting here is the right to contined preferential treatment in respect of a perk, ie effectively stating that ANY variation to the perk linked to industrial action is a breach of workers' rights. If the Court were to agree to this then I would have to acknowledge how right you are in terms of its impact on employer/employee relationships. Unfortunately there is no precedent to support interference at such a level, and a lot of precedent to suggest the Court will not see it as within its competence to interfere. To do so would imply a degree of intrusiveness in individual agreements way out of line with the intentions of either Parliament or the framers of the ECoHR.
But let's say BA really is as intransigent as you imply, and takes "the bosses" position versus Unite's "the workers" position as a fundamental matter of principle. It duly ends up either at the Supreme Court or ECoHR. "The workers" win. The next question is how will employers generally react? You seem to assume that they'd just accept the result and do nothing. I suspect the reality would be rather different. Either employers would simply withdraw all non-contractual benefits from all staff, hardly a victory for "the workers" generally. Or, more likely in my view, they'd tighten up the language dealing with circumstances in which they may be withdrawn, such that employees acknowledge certain specific cases in which they will no longer qualify for the perk or its terms may be varied (such as engaging in industrial action even when such as action is "legal"). Leaving aside the current dispute, many people (not all of them on "the workers" side of the debate) would welcome greater clarity in certain aspects of employer/employee relations, including discouragement of "at our complete discretion"-type wording in contracts or related documents.
From a financial perspective, it makes no sense for BA to pursue this issue to its ultimate legal conclusion, irrespective of whether or not they believe they'll win. The costs almost certainly exceed any financial settlement they'd have to offer Unite/BASSA to resolve the matter well before then. Again, provided BA made a reasonable offer, then the Court will not entertain a case against them.
Whilst there is a degree of emotion displayed on here, the dispirting fact for Unite/BASSA is there is no such display of emotion from BA. They clearly set out what they wanted to achieve in terms of cost cutting, clearly stated what they would do to undermine any industrial action and the effectiveness they anticipated from their contingency plans, and delivered on it. Everything BA has done to date has been driven by delivering the improved cost base it promised investors. Resolving the staff travel issue will be no different. As and when BA can settle it at lower cost than continuing to oppose Unite/BASSA, and in a way that does not require them to back down on what they now consider the principle of non-return of seniority, they'll take it. This is only a matter of principle to those on one side of the argument.
I am a betting man, and I would take a big bet that this issue will not result in a precedent-setting Court decision.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From a financial perspective, it makes no sense for BA to pursue this issue to its ultimate legal conclusion, irrespective of whether or not they believe they'll win. The costs almost certainly exceed any financial settlement they'd have to offer Unite/BASSA to resolve the matter well before then. Again, provided BA made a reasonable offer, then the Court will not entertain a case against them.
.......
I am a betting man, and I would take a big bet that this issue will not result in a precedent-setting Court decision.
.......
I am a betting man, and I would take a big bet that this issue will not result in a precedent-setting Court decision.
So yes I would expect this to be settled before it got to the final day in court, but that will probably be due to BASSA/UNITE needing to save funds/running out of funds, and so accepting pretty much any settlement from BA. Especially is BA ensure the day in court is pushed out 2/3 or more years.
I also see that some people think that victory in court would be a huge win. But to settle out of court in 3 years, would be a very hollow victory, and even then the court is highly unlikely to enforce the return of ST with seniority (return of ST maybe, but the seniority highly unlikely). By then BA is likely to have returned it anyway. But I also see that this is not a clear cut (either way) case. Imagine also the affect if UNITE/BASSA were to refuse all settlement offers and then LOSE in court in 2/3 time, and then have BA's costs to pay, even if they only get 50% of the costs awarded against them. They have a lot more to lose in a long drawn out court case.