BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions II
Litebulbs -
......... probably Scargill. His fear of holding a ballot lead to the downfall of the NUM, and probably convinced the wets around Thatcher that this voting idea had more traction than they thought.
......................beyond that, you could also blame the Australians with their (political) voting process. ........................
and if you wanted to take it all seriously, the fault clearly belongs to Friedrich Hayek.
......... probably Scargill. His fear of holding a ballot lead to the downfall of the NUM, and probably convinced the wets around Thatcher that this voting idea had more traction than they thought.
......................beyond that, you could also blame the Australians with their (political) voting process. ........................
and if you wanted to take it all seriously, the fault clearly belongs to Friedrich Hayek.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The suggestion was that it would not be just union members, but the whole affected workplace group.
I’d be interested to see what the definition of the effected workplace group was?
Looking at the BA IA would that include the catering staff that were on short hours due to less flights during a strike, or just other BA employees like baggage, engineers, yadda yadda - tricky one that I think.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Neptunus Rex
Legislation is needed to demand that a majority of the paid-up union members vote in favour of IA, rather than a majority of those who chose to vote.
Remember UK General Elections:
2001; Labour elected with 24.1% of the electorate
2005; Labour with 21.6% (9,556,000 of 44,180,000)
2010; Conservatives 23%; Liberal 14.9%
Unite achieved rather higher majorities.....
Last edited by BillS; 13th Aug 2010 at 12:36. Reason: added link
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you legislate to outlaw strikes or make laws to achieve them too draconian things will just revert to the bad old days.
Belonging to a Union was illegal, striking was illegal. None of that stopped brave men doing it and fighting the injustice.
The only thing that keeps the Unions on the 'legal' path is spectre of sequestration. After all, how would all those at the top survive should that happen?
The middle ground is there. but, that does not give employers freedom to destroy wages and terms and conditions thinly disguised in 'The economic climate'. Irresponsible employers are dicing with company futures more than the Unions. Usually led by bad advice from the EEF.
I cannot understand those not voting. They even get a prepaid envelope to return it.....Lazy, comes to mind.
Belonging to a Union was illegal, striking was illegal. None of that stopped brave men doing it and fighting the injustice.
The only thing that keeps the Unions on the 'legal' path is spectre of sequestration. After all, how would all those at the top survive should that happen?
The middle ground is there. but, that does not give employers freedom to destroy wages and terms and conditions thinly disguised in 'The economic climate'. Irresponsible employers are dicing with company futures more than the Unions. Usually led by bad advice from the EEF.
I cannot understand those not voting. They even get a prepaid envelope to return it.....Lazy, comes to mind.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personally, given the substantial costs to the business of IA and the protection afforded to employees/union who take official IA (including not being liable for the damages they incur), I would like to go a step further and suggest a law that says:
"greater than 50% of all union eligible employees are required to vote in favour of IA for it to be consider official....."
I consider an employee's decision whether to join the union or not is in effect the first step, the second step is to actually vote when called and the third step is to vote "Yes" in favour of IA. Then, for example, if 90% of eligible employees choose to join the union and 80% actually vote and 80% vote in favour of IA the union would have 0.9 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 57.6% and could declare a majority win.
What happened yesterday at BAA with a less than 50% turn-out had UNITE saying "employees voted 3 to 1 in favour" of IA when the truth of the matter is that "only 1 in 4 eligible employees actually voted for IA" which is a very different matter. UNITE would have been able to make the very same statement had only 3 employees voted in favour out of 4 actually voting from a work force of 6,000. Which, I trust, all of us would agree is ludicrous! Likewise,as BASSA was proposing, this would also render ineffective the union balloting a conveniently selected sub-section of its membership only and then declaring the same specious statement.
The ability to cause £1bns of damages (without any liability) by simply doing nothing other than being an apathetic member of a union seems to me like an inordinate amount of power to give someone.
"greater than 50% of all union eligible employees are required to vote in favour of IA for it to be consider official....."
I consider an employee's decision whether to join the union or not is in effect the first step, the second step is to actually vote when called and the third step is to vote "Yes" in favour of IA. Then, for example, if 90% of eligible employees choose to join the union and 80% actually vote and 80% vote in favour of IA the union would have 0.9 x 0.8 x 0.8 = 57.6% and could declare a majority win.
What happened yesterday at BAA with a less than 50% turn-out had UNITE saying "employees voted 3 to 1 in favour" of IA when the truth of the matter is that "only 1 in 4 eligible employees actually voted for IA" which is a very different matter. UNITE would have been able to make the very same statement had only 3 employees voted in favour out of 4 actually voting from a work force of 6,000. Which, I trust, all of us would agree is ludicrous! Likewise,as BASSA was proposing, this would also render ineffective the union balloting a conveniently selected sub-section of its membership only and then declaring the same specious statement.
The ability to cause £1bns of damages (without any liability) by simply doing nothing other than being an apathetic member of a union seems to me like an inordinate amount of power to give someone.
Last edited by Phil Rigg; 13th Aug 2010 at 14:21.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well that is one way of looking at it PR. If all employers were reasonable, we would not have unions now. As I have said before, we are only 100 years past the master and servants act. The law says to collectively negotiate, you need to be collectively recognised. Collective bargaining makes sense when you have the employee structure that BA have in cabin crew. Three roles and 12000 employees. When it works it is simple and the reps get the stick.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly....In today's society there should be no need for IA. Unfortunately there are is a breed of employer who, given an inch will always take a mile.
Of course you will never see the many, many harmonious Union/Company arrangements discussed on the likes of here.. It is unfortunately the nature of the beast.
Of course you will never see the many, many harmonious Union/Company arrangements discussed on the likes of here.. It is unfortunately the nature of the beast.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair Litebulbs, you've had pretty much exactly that across the rest of BA. Sure, unions and management disagree, but they find a way through. The aspect of Phil Rigg's interesting post that is overlooked is that whilst you might have the result spun as a 3-1 vote in favour of action, provided a union isn't completely stupid, then it will be perfectly well aware that 75% of its membership did not vote in favour of industrial action. Therefore it will be cautious about calling a strike given there is every chance a substantial number of staff will cross the picketline.
Clearly, there isn't much enthusiasm for strike action amongst the BAA workers. Calling them out would be extremely risky. To that extent, BASSA have been a bit unfortunate (initially) in the BA case - they DID get a mandate for strike action. It's just that most of the crew ignored the call.
Clearly, there isn't much enthusiasm for strike action amongst the BAA workers. Calling them out would be extremely risky. To that extent, BASSA have been a bit unfortunate (initially) in the BA case - they DID get a mandate for strike action. It's just that most of the crew ignored the call.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To that extent, BASSA have been a bit unfortunate (initially) in the BA case - they DID get a mandate for strike action. It's just that most of the crew ignored the call.
It created a belief within BASSA that BA would give in if push came to shove. It also created within the mind of a lot of crew the belief that a vote for IA would make BA think twice and crucially, that they would probably not have to actually strike themselves. This disconnect between the act of voting for IA and actually carrying out the strike has had a major influence on the events of the last 18 months or so.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lotpax,
Yes I think you are right, the business product has been cut back in recent times and I can really only speak for myself and my crews but I think we try harder than ever, to make up for those shortcomings by trying to be as attentive as possible.
Not sure if your 4 hour flight would have been part of the EF network because Larnaca or maybe Moscow are the only flight we do that would be that long. Anyway sounds like you were on a 767 or 757 if it were EF and they are due to be retired soon. As a Purser I no longer fly on them, thank God!! I just fly on the airbus and mostly they are relatively new and smart looking.
Anyway hope you do give us a chance again because I am constantly being told by passengers how suprised they are, how good we are!! Some people buy tickets with us because we were cheap or just happened to fit in with their schedual and then they are pleasantly suprised by the service from the crew. I think all the bad press has caused people to expect us not to be good and infact most of us, and I can only speak for EF, would bend over backwards to give good service.
Yes I think you are right, the business product has been cut back in recent times and I can really only speak for myself and my crews but I think we try harder than ever, to make up for those shortcomings by trying to be as attentive as possible.
Not sure if your 4 hour flight would have been part of the EF network because Larnaca or maybe Moscow are the only flight we do that would be that long. Anyway sounds like you were on a 767 or 757 if it were EF and they are due to be retired soon. As a Purser I no longer fly on them, thank God!! I just fly on the airbus and mostly they are relatively new and smart looking.
Anyway hope you do give us a chance again because I am constantly being told by passengers how suprised they are, how good we are!! Some people buy tickets with us because we were cheap or just happened to fit in with their schedual and then they are pleasantly suprised by the service from the crew. I think all the bad press has caused people to expect us not to be good and infact most of us, and I can only speak for EF, would bend over backwards to give good service.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Juan Tugoh,
I was crew at the time of the 97 big sicky.I don't feel that BA caved in. BASSA told the crew they had got them a big victory but everything that they gained was already on the table. At the time I was in CC89 (now known as AMICUS) and we did not go on strike. BASSA was part of the TGWU and you are right, in the fact that they made out they had got a great victory but those of us in the more honest union CC89 new that what BASSA said they had gained was already being offered prior to the strike. SO once again BASSA took crew out on strike (actually most did go sick) for absolutely nothing, just like now.
So basically BASSA have been lying to crew for years and years.The deal that had already been negotiated by CC89 back in 97, was the one that gave them all the new long range agreement, that WW crew now enjoy and yes you are right BASSA did take the credit for it but at the time they were playing their usual tricks of not wanting to sit in the same room as CC89 reps.
I feel very sorry for all the now AMICUS reps because they have been forced by their, now joint parent union Unite, to show a united front with BASSA and I am sure that many of them are upset by what has been going on but are unable to do anything about it.
I was crew at the time of the 97 big sicky.I don't feel that BA caved in. BASSA told the crew they had got them a big victory but everything that they gained was already on the table. At the time I was in CC89 (now known as AMICUS) and we did not go on strike. BASSA was part of the TGWU and you are right, in the fact that they made out they had got a great victory but those of us in the more honest union CC89 new that what BASSA said they had gained was already being offered prior to the strike. SO once again BASSA took crew out on strike (actually most did go sick) for absolutely nothing, just like now.
So basically BASSA have been lying to crew for years and years.The deal that had already been negotiated by CC89 back in 97, was the one that gave them all the new long range agreement, that WW crew now enjoy and yes you are right BASSA did take the credit for it but at the time they were playing their usual tricks of not wanting to sit in the same room as CC89 reps.
I feel very sorry for all the now AMICUS reps because they have been forced by their, now joint parent union Unite, to show a united front with BASSA and I am sure that many of them are upset by what has been going on but are unable to do anything about it.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Age: 69
Posts: 475
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the fact is if you are called to vote.....then vote. The result is determined by those who participate. With all these suggestions of new rules etc. what a load of nonsense.
Vote or face the consequences. One of the options on the ballot paper is NO.
75% didn't vote yes well many didn't vote no either. So what can you determine?
Is anyone aware of the percentage vote that puts a government in power?
Vote or face the consequences. One of the options on the ballot paper is NO.
75% didn't vote yes well many didn't vote no either. So what can you determine?
Is anyone aware of the percentage vote that puts a government in power?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Papillon's statement that any thinking union, while spinning a win, will realise the underlying truth. However, as we have seen with the BA CC IA the entire damage to the company is not just that caused by the actual number who walk-out on the day. It also includes the total amount of business and goodwill lost to its customers given the uncertainly caused by the threat as witnessed by the current press hysteria created by BAA declaring it has a "3 to 1 mandate" for IA potentially causing airport closures within as little as 7 days.
Again, this damage could be caused as a consequence of very small group of the total employees eligible for union membership actually voting "Yes" in the union's IA ballot call along with a very much larger group of aparently apathetic members.
SC: When seeking to undertake something as significant as joining the EC in 1974(?) the then UK Government sought a mandate through a national referendum even though legally it could have unilaterally made the decision based on it having been put in power by a minority of the population.
Again, this damage could be caused as a consequence of very small group of the total employees eligible for union membership actually voting "Yes" in the union's IA ballot call along with a very much larger group of aparently apathetic members.
SC: When seeking to undertake something as significant as joining the EC in 1974(?) the then UK Government sought a mandate through a national referendum even though legally it could have unilaterally made the decision based on it having been put in power by a minority of the population.
Last edited by Phil Rigg; 13th Aug 2010 at 16:32.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Out there, somewhere
Age: 60
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Betty Girl
Yes, it was a 767 on one of the routes you mention. I am pleased that you do not work in such a horrible environment, I was thoroughly depressed after nearly 4 hours in that cabin.
When the industrial action is over, I am sure I will.
As I said earlier, the London to Paris flight I took in late July was excellent, so I am not saying BA is bad, in fact having flown only 2 times this year, I would not draw any conclusions.
Yes, it was a 767 on one of the routes you mention. I am pleased that you do not work in such a horrible environment, I was thoroughly depressed after nearly 4 hours in that cabin.
Anyway hope you do give us a chance again because I am constantly being told by passengers how suprised they are, how good we are!
As I said earlier, the London to Paris flight I took in late July was excellent, so I am not saying BA is bad, in fact having flown only 2 times this year, I would not draw any conclusions.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Out there, somewhere
Age: 60
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PhilRigg
The BAA equation (for the union) is how many people are needed to run the security and other services and will the hard core who voted yes be able to cause the airports to close.
25% of the whole workforce coming out might be more than enough to stop things dead (although I am speculating and may be very wrong.)
I've just booked flights avoiding a London connection on 4/9 and 11/9, just in case.
That is the trouble with IA for businessmen, the threat of disruption is as good as disruption in persuading us to take action.
The BAA equation (for the union) is how many people are needed to run the security and other services and will the hard core who voted yes be able to cause the airports to close.
25% of the whole workforce coming out might be more than enough to stop things dead (although I am speculating and may be very wrong.)
I've just booked flights avoiding a London connection on 4/9 and 11/9, just in case.
That is the trouble with IA for businessmen, the threat of disruption is as good as disruption in persuading us to take action.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Out there, somewhere
Age: 60
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
75% didn't vote yes well many didn't vote no either. So what can you determine?
I also with the statements about governments being elected on very low turn outs - interestingly enough, in Australia, voting is mandatory.
Maybe that is a fairer fix for union ballots? Vote or be liable to legal action.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'll make this last comment and then give everyone a break by letting it drop ;-)
All of my comments to now have been related to a general company. In the case of BAA (and to a lesser extent BA) the potential damages that could be caused by a militant few and an apathetic many will extend to many innocent third party companies and their customers including all the airlines and many others who operate in and out of their airports.
What seems wrong to me is the ability to be held harmless while causing untold damages to others across international borders just by being a member of a union and simply sitting on your backside!
If the law has given you this level of power then would it not be reasonable for it to ask you to have to lift your wrist and tick a box before being able to wreak liability free havoc on this scale?
All of my comments to now have been related to a general company. In the case of BAA (and to a lesser extent BA) the potential damages that could be caused by a militant few and an apathetic many will extend to many innocent third party companies and their customers including all the airlines and many others who operate in and out of their airports.
What seems wrong to me is the ability to be held harmless while causing untold damages to others across international borders just by being a member of a union and simply sitting on your backside!
If the law has given you this level of power then would it not be reasonable for it to ask you to have to lift your wrist and tick a box before being able to wreak liability free havoc on this scale?
Last edited by Phil Rigg; 13th Aug 2010 at 17:36.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 219
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe that is a fairer fix for union ballots? Vote or be liable to legal action.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Out there, somewhere
Age: 60
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you really want to force people to vote one way or another when they clearly don't really care?
The Australian government view seems to be that voting is too important not to care about.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they cock it up like BA have the airports could shut for quite a while. It only needs the Firemen to go out ant the airport is shut. I think you will find they are the one group who will remain solid.
This needs talks not macho crap.
This needs talks not macho crap.