BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II

[Phil Rigg]

.......thus concluding that if we can't find an acceptable way of guaranteeing that all eligible parties are going to participate we at least preserve the definition of democracy being a majority by making absolutely sure that a majority of the eligible membership vote in favour, rather than a majority of those who choose to participate, before we inadvertently grant a militant minority the relatively unbridled freedom to wreak untold havoc on the rest of our lives.

I believe if this far more stringent requirement was to have been met by BASSA we wouldn't have seen the irresponsible juvenile antics displayed at Bedfont FC, nor the unacceptable bullying behaviour of pickets towards their non-striking members. Indeed, as a true majority had spoken, there would be no need to picket at all and management would have no choice whatsoever but to sit up and listen to mature and reasoned argument for a change.

[Rusland 17]

Originally Posted by PAXBoy

I had no idea that mentioning TB would have such a reaction.

And I had no idea that posting such a message would result in my receiving such an unpleasant private message from Fincastle. And I didn't even vote for Tony Blair...

[Landroger]

Juan Tugho

Precisely JT. Although you are on the mark about "None of the above" and "Abstain", I think an "Abstention" box might be a concept too far for the indifferent. A vote for none of the above more or less covers it, while having that indefinable suggestion of humour to soften the blow of Papillon's Illiberal Act.

Phil Rigg has simply put the same thing in a slightly more sharply edged form and brings us neatly back to the BA CC IA and one of the reasons why it is such a dreadful mess. Having said that, one of the main contrary issues would not have been addressed by compulsory voting. That of CC 'writing cheques their ar$es couldn't cover' by voting for strike action and then working.

Roger.

[Sir Richard]

As we seem to have strayed onto "Voting" and "Democracy", is it reasonable that Part-Time Staff (25%, 33%, 50%), who, IMHO, also tend to be the more "Senior" Cabin Crew, each have a 100% vote?

[Juan Tugoh]

one of the main contrary issues would not have been addressed by compulsory voting. That of CC 'writing cheques their ar$es couldn't cover' by voting for strike action and then working

the answer to that is held in one of Papillon's postings:

People have the right to be....... stupid, ignorant, thoughtless and wrong as well

[Landroger]

Sir Richard

As we seem to have strayed onto "Voting" and "Democracy", is it reasonable that Part-Time Staff (25%, 33%, 50%), who also tend to be the more "Senior" Cabin Crew, each have a 100% vote?

We haven't strayed far Sir Richard and I'm sure we will all be 'back on piste' as soon as something happens - which it isn't at the moment. This thread is less prone to descent into the utterly irrelevant, so it would be a good moment for one of the 'Cross Posters' to explain - in words of few syllables - the way 50%, 33% and 25% crew operate for us 'SLF and Allied Trades'.

Since Sir Richard has pointed out the possible anomaly, it's difficult to visualise how a quarter or a 1/3rd of a vote would work. Any offers?

Roger.

[Sir Richard]

I am guessing it could work the same way as BA count FTE, Full Time Equivalent, staff when it comes to staff numbers in the Annual Report.

4 @ 25% plus 3 @ 33% = 2 Staff = 2 Votes. rather than 7 votes

[Juan Tugoh]

2 votes instead of 7. Now that concept would likely scare BASSA witless!

[KBPsen]

So if you have put in some overtime your vote should count for more than 1?

[slast]

33/50% voters

I raised this issue earlier (post 688). I question the right of a 50% worker’s vote to strike carrying equal weight with that of a full-time worker – after all they have a 50% less chance of being required to follow through by refusing to report on a strike day, and have less to lose than a full-timer if things go wrong (as they have in the current situation).

However I don't think lots of overtime should entitle you to MORE than 1 vote, after all overtime is supposed to be occasional work in excess of contracted time. But if I was not only working 100% but also doing overtime, and I voted one way, I should certainly feel annoyed if a decision turned on the views of those without even 100% commitment. As a former "union rep" as well, I would have some doubt about how accurate an indication of strength of feeling I was getting from a ballot which didn't differentiate part-timers from full timers. That may be a factor in BASSA's misjudgement of how much impact they'd actually have when push (threat) came to shove (stoppage). Even a committed striker doesn't have any impact on the business if they happen to be at home anyway.

[call100]

It's nothing new all this. People will always speculate on ways to change the voting system until they get the result they want.
There is no excuse for not voting. It's just plain lazy. Ballot drops through your door, open, mark X appropriately, put in prepaid envelope, pop into postbox at your leisure.

[Hipennine]

33/50% voters

It would be very interesting to have a breakdown of the 4950 (or is 7000 ?) strikers to see their full-time or part-time status. Presumably if the strikers were mostly part-timers, the impact would be significantly less on the operation, and go some way to explaining the relative non-use of VCC, CRC being apparently busy, etc. on strike days.

[Lotpax]

On the same basis, should amputees have less than a full vote?

Seems to me that an employye is an employee, regardless of hours worked and on that basis deserves a full vote.

[Juan Tugoh]

And we should definitely factor in in someone's height - shorter people should should not count the same as tall people!

Lotpax is right - one man(woman) one vote.

[ChicoG]

I have to say it makes me sick to my stomach watching that puke Woodley, being interviewed in regards to the BAA strike, once again pretending he gives a about the possibility of buggering up the holiday plans of hundreds of thousands of people.

If ever anyone needed a good slap, it's him.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a back door attempt at punishing BA for winning the battle with militant cabin crew.

STRIKES by members of the Unite union at BAA airports could cost British Airways up to £15 million a day in lost revenues, according to a leading industry observer.

Source: Scottish Sunday Express | City & Business :: BAA strikes to cost BA £15m a day

[Snas]

As far as I'm concerned, it's a back door attempt at punishing BA for winning the battle with militant cabin crew

(if that is so) …and by doing so inflict further losses on CC also in lost allowances for trips they won’t be flying. As if ST and wages lost to date wasn’t enough.

[ChicoG]

(if that is so) …and by doing so inflict further losses on CC also in lost allowances for trips they won’t be flying. As if ST and wages lost to date wasn’t enough.

And hopefully drive more people to question the value of paying so much of their earnings to what essentially looks like a political organisation trying to score points while its leaders earn a pretty penny.

I can only hope that more people start questioning why they pay money to a union that costs them a lot more than just their monthly subs.

[ChicoG]

Shock and surprise. A Unite official called Brendan Gold announces a settlement which will be put recommended to BAA employees.

I'd say he's positioned himself well to go for the Gen. Secs. job, he's clearly a whole lot better at negotiation than the other muppets.

[Litebulbs]

Or Unite are dealing with a different management team?

[LD12986]

Litebulbs, other workgroups at BA that are represented by Unite have managed to successfully negotiate significant changes with management.

The one exception is BASSA, which suggests they are the problem.