BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is what is most worrying, if the majority of those potentially affected do not fully understand the legal side. I am not saying that they should in any way back down, but a full understanding of the potential consequences should me made 100% crystal clear.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: LHR
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SOE - I don't believe BA will ultimately withdraw entirely from LGW. Its long-haul routes are O&D so there is little benefit in moving them to LHR and by all accounts they are doing well. Management have been very clear that there is scope to grow the long-haul network at LGW. Indeed there has been a new/reinstated appointment of head of LGW.
Also, even if some slots were freed up at LHR there are plenty of new routes in the Middle East and Asia that could be added to the route network. WW has himself said that there are a few new routes in Asia (as well as a similar number of TATL routes that should be viable when the 787 comes on line. I think New Fleet at LHR is in part to make new long range routes at LHR viable.
Also, even if some slots were freed up at LHR there are plenty of new routes in the Middle East and Asia that could be added to the route network. WW has himself said that there are a few new routes in Asia (as well as a similar number of TATL routes that should be viable when the 787 comes on line. I think New Fleet at LHR is in part to make new long range routes at LHR viable.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unreliable evidence
Following a link the BBC iplayer version of the above mentioned programme Two Quotes stood out for me.
John Hendy QC (Unite's Lawyer) "If there is a right to strike, there exists a right to bring down the company of your employer".
Sir Thomas Morrison: "It is quite unecessary to have BA type disputes going on if only the unions would follow the law"
This shows the mindset on the union's QC and the more measured response of an eminent QC now retired.
I think I heard John Hendy defend the illegality of the earlier ballot because it did not affect the result. i.e. It was only a little bit illegal.
John Hendy QC (Unite's Lawyer) "If there is a right to strike, there exists a right to bring down the company of your employer".
Sir Thomas Morrison: "It is quite unecessary to have BA type disputes going on if only the unions would follow the law"
This shows the mindset on the union's QC and the more measured response of an eminent QC now retired.
I think I heard John Hendy defend the illegality of the earlier ballot because it did not affect the result. i.e. It was only a little bit illegal.
I'm not impressed by their conversation at all. The coverage of the so-called "right to strike" was complete and universal. Er, there is no "right to strike" in Marxist countries. Try striking in Russia and China and Burma.
I only heard them talking about how TUs and Co.s should continue to pay them (the lawyers) many thousands of pounds per day to carry on arguing about silly points of law that the lawyers could not agree on.
I humbly suggest that their version of the "right to strike" should be re-named "the right to strike yourself out of a job"
Do they really think that BA folk have a right to strike, when Etihad, Emirates, the Asian, the Chinese and Russian airlines do not??
I'm afraid that they, and some of our UK colleagues need to spend more time in Asia.
Litebulbs - try working in China for your rights. I'm not saying they are right, but saying that you are OK to strike just opens up the chance that the Chinese will take your job...............and the Chinese are cheaper than the Welsh.
I only heard them talking about how TUs and Co.s should continue to pay them (the lawyers) many thousands of pounds per day to carry on arguing about silly points of law that the lawyers could not agree on.
I humbly suggest that their version of the "right to strike" should be re-named "the right to strike yourself out of a job"
Do they really think that BA folk have a right to strike, when Etihad, Emirates, the Asian, the Chinese and Russian airlines do not??
I'm afraid that they, and some of our UK colleagues need to spend more time in Asia.
Litebulbs - try working in China for your rights. I'm not saying they are right, but saying that you are OK to strike just opens up the chance that the Chinese will take your job...............and the Chinese are cheaper than the Welsh.
Last edited by Ancient Observer; 6th Jan 2011 at 20:14. Reason: typo
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Err, what has that got to do with me?
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: uk
Age: 54
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Hendy QC (Unite's Lawyer) "If there is a right to strike, there exists a right to bring down the company of your employer".
And how exactly does that help me - Jane Bloggs a member of the trade union who is paying you the trade union to look after my interests, provide advice, representation and negotiate on my behalf?
My god do these people have no common sense? I really do think that some trade unions and their legal advisors have lost sight of what they are there for. If you exercise the right to strike you also have to exercise the responsibility to ensure you protect your members interest. It is NOT in your members interests for their employer to go out of business. It is not in the long term interest of the Union either as the NUM found out.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not impressed by their conversation at all. The coverage of the so-called "right to strike" was complete and universal. Er, there is no "right to strike" in Marxist countries. Try striking in Russia and China and Burma.
I only heard them talking about how TUs and Co.s should continue to pay them (the lawyers) many thousands of pounds per day to carry on arguing about silly points of law that the lawyers could not agree on.
I humbly suggest that their version of the "right to strike" should be re-named "the right to strike yourself out of a job"
Do they really think that BA folk have a right to strike, when Etihad, Emirates, the Asian, the Chinese and Russian airlines do not??
I'm afraid that they, and some of our UK colleagues need to spend more time in Asia.
Litebulbs - try working in China for your rights. I'm not saying they are right, but saying that you are OK to strike just opens up the chance that the Chinese will take your job...............and the Chinese are cheaper than the Welsh.
I only heard them talking about how TUs and Co.s should continue to pay them (the lawyers) many thousands of pounds per day to carry on arguing about silly points of law that the lawyers could not agree on.
I humbly suggest that their version of the "right to strike" should be re-named "the right to strike yourself out of a job"
Do they really think that BA folk have a right to strike, when Etihad, Emirates, the Asian, the Chinese and Russian airlines do not??
I'm afraid that they, and some of our UK colleagues need to spend more time in Asia.
Litebulbs - try working in China for your rights. I'm not saying they are right, but saying that you are OK to strike just opens up the chance that the Chinese will take your job...............and the Chinese are cheaper than the Welsh.
As you don't believe they are right in China, do you believe it should be a right here? Or, are they right in China, Burma etc?
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you actually listen to the whole radio show, you will see that it was a very balanced and informative programme and the barristers on both sides of the debate sounded very knowledgeable.
Obviously disputes like this keep them in business but I think that on the whole, all of them talked a lot of sense and picking out one sentence or another out of context and then arguing about it seems nonsensical.
Obviously disputes like this keep them in business but I think that on the whole, all of them talked a lot of sense and picking out one sentence or another out of context and then arguing about it seems nonsensical.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But you forget Betty girl that there are many on here that believe the barristers know nothing.....Mainly because the opinion does not fit into their opinions.
Personally I take the opinion of whichever Lawyer is representing my interests. That does not mean I don't understand that the opposing Legal eagle will have an entirely different point of view.
As you say, plucking the odd sentence here and there out of context and arguing over it is a bit pointless....
Personally I take the opinion of whichever Lawyer is representing my interests. That does not mean I don't understand that the opposing Legal eagle will have an entirely different point of view.
As you say, plucking the odd sentence here and there out of context and arguing over it is a bit pointless....
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: uk
Age: 54
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who was a member of two trade unions and who held off joining unite because it was a temporary job I really do not appreciate that they employ lawyers who only seem interested in arguing points of law which taken to their logical conclusion will be to the detriment of their members. Trade Unions and their Lawyers need to remember what they are employed for and not be consumed by their own political ambitions. I listened to the entire discussion and I wasn't particularly impressed by either side. They are both as bad as each other.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do see what you all are saying but in defence of those barristers they ALL more or less said that it was the legislation at fault and they could only work with what they had.
I doubt we will see a change in it until maybe another labour government but not even then, who knows!
I doubt we will see a change in it until maybe another labour government but not even then, who knows!
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slf22
I understand what you are saying, but did some of your criticism of the show come because of its light entertainment nature? The biggest thing that I got from the show was the discussion on the statute provision and that it had not majorly changed for many years. Some of the panel wanted change and some didn't.
My opinion is more needs to be done by my union to be able to run a technically correct ballot. The rules are in the legislation, so follow them. But I imagine that it would be almost technically impossible to run a 100% satisfactory ballot. The union can only act on the information that is supplied to it by the membership and why should errors that have no possible influence on the result, be taken into account?
The High Court ruled (flabbily in the opinion of one), that minor errors should not affect the result, but that was just for the ballot and particular error in question, not a completely binging president on all industrial action ballots.
If you read this case, it shows what the courts are saying with regards to following the legislation. If change is wanted, it needs to be through the Law Lords or Parliament.
HSBC Bank Plc v Madden [2000] EWCA Civ 3030 (31 July 2000)
But change has not come through successive Tory and Labour Governments, which can only indicate that the political sphere are happy as it is.
My opinion is more needs to be done by my union to be able to run a technically correct ballot. The rules are in the legislation, so follow them. But I imagine that it would be almost technically impossible to run a 100% satisfactory ballot. The union can only act on the information that is supplied to it by the membership and why should errors that have no possible influence on the result, be taken into account?
The High Court ruled (flabbily in the opinion of one), that minor errors should not affect the result, but that was just for the ballot and particular error in question, not a completely binging president on all industrial action ballots.
If you read this case, it shows what the courts are saying with regards to following the legislation. If change is wanted, it needs to be through the Law Lords or Parliament.
HSBC Bank Plc v Madden [2000] EWCA Civ 3030 (31 July 2000)
But change has not come through successive Tory and Labour Governments, which can only indicate that the political sphere are happy as it is.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs,
I think a lot of what you say is true.
This ballot is yet again being badly handled by Unite, they have been sending out ballot papers to people who have resigned, quite some time ago now, who have not been making payments to them for over a year. I myself did not get one but I know of at least 6 people that have.
I think a lot of what you say is true.
This ballot is yet again being badly handled by Unite, they have been sending out ballot papers to people who have resigned, quite some time ago now, who have not been making payments to them for over a year. I myself did not get one but I know of at least 6 people that have.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lawyers.....
....must be the only profession where you get paid more to go back to court again and again when you dislike the earlier (perverse in your view) decision(s).
having said that, my contacts with the legal profession showed me that
a) no one disliked going to court more than a lawyer. if they could reasonably advise a client to settle they would do just that.
b)the quality of advice re litigation was extremely variable. TU lawyers were very much on the ball in regard to compensation claims at least.
a wise man tries to put his own affairs in order.
having said that, my contacts with the legal profession showed me that
a) no one disliked going to court more than a lawyer. if they could reasonably advise a client to settle they would do just that.
b)the quality of advice re litigation was extremely variable. TU lawyers were very much on the ball in regard to compensation claims at least.
a wise man tries to put his own affairs in order.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: 45 yards from a tropical beach
Posts: 1,103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From That Other Forum:
Litebulbs:
As if a First Officer is going to leave the cockpit to assist! Get real.
Is the venerable Litebulbs (or one of his/her mates) going to be called to the cockpit to help out with an engine failure?
"Horses for courses" indeed!
Ideas beyond your station, methinks.
Litebulbs:
I would generally rather have an experienced cabin crew member with avmed and interpersonal skills treating me if I fell ill on a flight, than one of the flight crew community. Horses for courses.
Is the venerable Litebulbs (or one of his/her mates) going to be called to the cockpit to help out with an engine failure?
"Horses for courses" indeed!
Ideas beyond your station, methinks.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Litebulbs has placed on record many times that he/she, although a union officer, is not flight crew in the widest possible meaning of the term. Think ground crew of some description, so like most of us. LB is most unlikely to be asked to help in a mid-flight crisis.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: essex
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
take home pay
on the CC forum, there has been a chorus of condemnation/disbelief after a poster said that his wife had achieved a take-home figure of circa £4,800 one month. replies have come from both the loony fringe and those we have come to regard as moderate and sensible voices.
now i know nothing about BA pay scales and can only go on what has been posted here. the poster is close to the person said to have been paid this figure. also, in earlier threads, figures were being bandied about concerning the annual earnings of CSDs - not least those of Duncan's potential earnings from all sources. those 'projections' were, in annual terms, reflective of the monthly figure now in dispute.
by contrast, alternative earnings being offered by the sceptics, i.e. 'below £1,000 pm', seem unrealistic if pertaining to a full time employee doing a normal month's work.
whilst not suggesting £4,800 is anything like an average month's earnings, i think if this figure is really 'fairyland' as some would have us believe, we need some hard facts. not least from those who were positing an annual salary of £60,000 for 'heritage crew' much earlier in this discussion.
now i know nothing about BA pay scales and can only go on what has been posted here. the poster is close to the person said to have been paid this figure. also, in earlier threads, figures were being bandied about concerning the annual earnings of CSDs - not least those of Duncan's potential earnings from all sources. those 'projections' were, in annual terms, reflective of the monthly figure now in dispute.
by contrast, alternative earnings being offered by the sceptics, i.e. 'below £1,000 pm', seem unrealistic if pertaining to a full time employee doing a normal month's work.
whilst not suggesting £4,800 is anything like an average month's earnings, i think if this figure is really 'fairyland' as some would have us believe, we need some hard facts. not least from those who were positing an annual salary of £60,000 for 'heritage crew' much earlier in this discussion.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Gatwick
Posts: 1,980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neptunus
The comments on the other thread were about experience and I was responding to a comment about landing on water, over helping me if I fell ill.
I am sorry if you did not understand my point and I will try to be clearer next time.
Oh, and I have been called to the flight deck for my opinion, prior to a fuel dump return, due to multiple engine issues. However, all the appropriate decisions had already been made and I just looked like another worried passenger.
I am sorry if you did not understand my point and I will try to be clearer next time.
Oh, and I have been called to the flight deck for my opinion, prior to a fuel dump return, due to multiple engine issues. However, all the appropriate decisions had already been made and I just looked like another worried passenger.
When your salary is like winning the lottery each month
From the other place
"£1100 (net each month) is an insult"
er, how can one spell this out to the folk in BA?? There are 5 million people in the UK who are on unemployment benefit of one sort or another.
5 million individuals, many with families.
To 5 million people, £1100 NET per month is like WINNING THE LOTTERY each and every month.
"£1100 (net each month) is an insult"
er, how can one spell this out to the folk in BA?? There are 5 million people in the UK who are on unemployment benefit of one sort or another.
5 million individuals, many with families.
To 5 million people, £1100 NET per month is like WINNING THE LOTTERY each and every month.