BA Strike - Your Thoughts & Questions III
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JDS
Agreed the situation is not black and white, they seldom are. What is clear from the article is that there are strings attached, that this loan is part of a re-structuring process including the import of "foreign" experts to put the business back on a sound economic footing.
The same would happen IF such government assistance were to be allowed. It would certainly not happen automatically and the government would have to ask permission from the EU to help.
The situation in Malta seems to be entirely different, there is essentially only one carrier whereas there are other carriers here that could and would take up the reins. Either way, the restructuring package would change the airline forever, the naive conceit that everything would be as it was before is both dangerous and stupid.
The same would happen IF such government assistance were to be allowed. It would certainly not happen automatically and the government would have to ask permission from the EU to help.
The situation in Malta seems to be entirely different, there is essentially only one carrier whereas there are other carriers here that could and would take up the reins. Either way, the restructuring package would change the airline forever, the naive conceit that everything would be as it was before is both dangerous and stupid.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: up north
Posts: 310
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Govt bail-out
I would venture to suggest that as a direct result of BASSA's skilled PR over this dispute (all the stuff in the Sun, etc.), that public support for a govt bail-out might not be entirely sympathetic, and therefore more politically unacceptable than a bank bail-out. I can just see the headlines "Taxpayers suffer so Trolley Dollies can continue to swan it up in Rio" etc, etc. Yet another example of how other BA employees may be directly adversely impacted in the future by Bassa's conduct now !
Join Date: May 2010
Location: maidenhead
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks notlangley,
Most of the time I think like that. It's only every now and again I have a little wobble and worry.
I think you are right.
With regard to the union figures, I think the figure for membership maybe even lower because a few crew who have left the union received ballot papers. I did not but I personally know of some that did.
Most of the time I think like that. It's only every now and again I have a little wobble and worry.
I think you are right.
With regard to the union figures, I think the figure for membership maybe even lower because a few crew who have left the union received ballot papers. I did not but I personally know of some that did.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tracey Island
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps if those 80% had actually voted not to strike the situation would have been different. Maybe they'll get off their apathetic backsides and vote this time.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But equally, why did so many BA cabin crew vote for strike action in support of their union leaders and then not go on strike? This IA is not the result of BASSA \ CC89. It is the result of the majority of BA cabin crew voting for it in 2010. BASSA \ CC89 are powerless without the continued support of BA cabin crew.
PC767 hits the nail on the head on the CC forum when discussing an on-going "power struggle" ... there seem to far too many cabin crew who don't seem to have grasped that their role is to ensure the safety and well being of passengers on a flight (not a role that I am belittling as it is extremely important). But cabin crew do not (any longer) run the airline.
Out of interest - why do so few crew trust management? Can you give concrete examples of why? Especially as it seems to be a trait that no other departments in BA have to such a degree.
Is it just that BA cabin crew don't trust management because they no longer have the management in their pocket. Managers are now trying to manage and that means crew having less power ... back to PC767 ..
The results of this strike ballot will be interesting ... just how many cabin crew still support their union who voted for "no negotiation" and then vowed to wage "a guerilla campaign" against their employer. Hmm ... with employees like that, perhaps it is no wonder that management and so many others in BA mistrust cabin crew. It would also explain why so many VCC have come forward from other departments to help ensure that striking cabin crew don't get to continue their bullying of the rest of the company.
It is going to be a long and difficult road back but the first step is for striking cabin crew to realise that negotiation and not confrontation is the way forward. Many BA cabin crew have lost a lot due to their actions and further strikes might see them lose a whole lot more.
PC767 hits the nail on the head on the CC forum when discussing an on-going "power struggle" ... there seem to far too many cabin crew who don't seem to have grasped that their role is to ensure the safety and well being of passengers on a flight (not a role that I am belittling as it is extremely important). But cabin crew do not (any longer) run the airline.
Out of interest - why do so few crew trust management? Can you give concrete examples of why? Especially as it seems to be a trait that no other departments in BA have to such a degree.
Is it just that BA cabin crew don't trust management because they no longer have the management in their pocket. Managers are now trying to manage and that means crew having less power ... back to PC767 ..
The results of this strike ballot will be interesting ... just how many cabin crew still support their union who voted for "no negotiation" and then vowed to wage "a guerilla campaign" against their employer. Hmm ... with employees like that, perhaps it is no wonder that management and so many others in BA mistrust cabin crew. It would also explain why so many VCC have come forward from other departments to help ensure that striking cabin crew don't get to continue their bullying of the rest of the company.
It is going to be a long and difficult road back but the first step is for striking cabin crew to realise that negotiation and not confrontation is the way forward. Many BA cabin crew have lost a lot due to their actions and further strikes might see them lose a whole lot more.
Last edited by BetterByBoat; 16th Jan 2011 at 13:28.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Why did so many BA cabin crew vote for strike action in support of their union leaders and then not go on strike?"
Good question. Maybe it's because they were answering the call to "send Willie a message". Well, he got the message, rolled it into a ball and lobbed it into the waste paper basket. There should be no excuse for such illusions next time round. "Are you prepared to take industrial action?" means exactly that.
Good question. Maybe it's because they were answering the call to "send Willie a message". Well, he got the message, rolled it into a ball and lobbed it into the waste paper basket. There should be no excuse for such illusions next time round. "Are you prepared to take industrial action?" means exactly that.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Stockport
Age: 84
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CC89 seem to be on very thin ice regarding protected status for any IA resulting from the current ballot. In their newsletter they say
To my mind, untutored in legal niceties, this seems to be strong evidence that any action this time will be a continuation of the last action, which is well past its protected life.
any settlement must also address the initial issues that caused the dispute, especially imposition, and the continuing breaking of our agreements.
- the dispute cannot be solely about staff travel or binding arbitration.
- the dispute cannot be solely about staff travel or binding arbitration.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and we are into the final furlong...
Interesting that CC89 have publicly stepped up the rhetoric. No such move seems to come from the BASSA camp. The big problem the union faces is voter apathy. The dispute has dragged on for so long without resolution. In reality BA don't need to do anything. Even if there is a mandate for strike action, how many cabin crew really want to lose more pay for no real benefit ? I think that the action will fizzle out. Working the numbers. Assume that there are 6000 votes for strike action. If the last ballot and walkout figures were applied this would mean around 3000 would go on strike. There are still some cabin crew members of Unite who didn't go on strike yet are still union members. At this point they may well feel inclined to leave. Anyone know the point at which a union can be derecognised ? From here on on it's a law of diminishing returns,
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is certain is that unless UNITE can mobilise more people to take strike action than they did last time, any strike is doomed to failure. BA could do nothing and let the strikers wither on the vine.
The whole ethos of IA is that it will prevent the company from trading, the last strike failed to do that. Should there be more IA it has to achieve more than the last time. As IA continues the evidence from previous strikes in the UK is that support wanes.
Should BA do nothing and ignore the IA except to stop strikers pay, what could UNITE do about it? The strikers would quickly lose the ability to pay the mortgage etc and would have to return to work.
Given the weak and ambivalent support at the last strike I wonder what UNITE feel they can achieve with more IA?
The whole ethos of IA is that it will prevent the company from trading, the last strike failed to do that. Should there be more IA it has to achieve more than the last time. As IA continues the evidence from previous strikes in the UK is that support wanes.
Should BA do nothing and ignore the IA except to stop strikers pay, what could UNITE do about it? The strikers would quickly lose the ability to pay the mortgage etc and would have to return to work.
Given the weak and ambivalent support at the last strike I wonder what UNITE feel they can achieve with more IA?
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,807
Received 135 Likes
on
63 Posts
Given the weak and ambivalent support at the last strike I wonder what UNITE feel they can achieve with more IA?
Please let us think whether the Union leadership really care about the workers, or whether they seek 'power' for themselves.
How many Trades Union leaders sit [occasionally] in the House of Lords?
How did Lord Prescott overcome his abhorrence of that institution to become "ennobled"?
Those who believe that their TU Leaders actually care about "Fred/Ethel at t' workplace" really need a reality check. It's just a different career path for different people who are busy climbing a greasy pole of their own, with no actual consideration for those who pay the dues that subsidise their lifestyles.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Heathrow
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think that believing that the Unite leadership want this strike is a slight simplification of things. The people formulating the reason for striking are the branch executives and the people who have the power to determine whether those reasons are a load of tosh or not are the members. It's up to cabin crew who are still members of Unite to say whether they want to strike. Of course it behoves the branch executive to ensure that they have spelled out what the potential effect of striking will be - loss of pay, possible loss of perks, likelihood of being sacked - otherwise they are leading the membership up the garden path. Don't know if the union can be sued for issuing incorrect legal advice.
I don't see cabin crew making particularly good sacrificial lambs. As a workforce they are reasonably middle class and the cause is not going to set the comrades in the wider union's hearts aflame with indignation. However, it does allow the union to test the water around the legal angles on strike action without seriously discomforting the bulk of the members. So whilst I don't believe that the leadership will instigate a strike, I don't think they will stand in the way of the branches want to have a go. After all, what have they got to lose. BASSA membership is dropping and it is patently clear that MF cabin crew will not join it in its present guise. I can see that when this dispute eventually ends Unite may wish to set up a new branch (or radically overhaul the BASSA/CC89 set up, possibly merging the two to form a single branch with a new name) which will have none of the baggage of the past, to represent cabin crew.
I don't see cabin crew making particularly good sacrificial lambs. As a workforce they are reasonably middle class and the cause is not going to set the comrades in the wider union's hearts aflame with indignation. However, it does allow the union to test the water around the legal angles on strike action without seriously discomforting the bulk of the members. So whilst I don't believe that the leadership will instigate a strike, I don't think they will stand in the way of the branches want to have a go. After all, what have they got to lose. BASSA membership is dropping and it is patently clear that MF cabin crew will not join it in its present guise. I can see that when this dispute eventually ends Unite may wish to set up a new branch (or radically overhaul the BASSA/CC89 set up, possibly merging the two to form a single branch with a new name) which will have none of the baggage of the past, to represent cabin crew.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rugby
Posts: 883
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chaos
On the CC forum there is an interesting video about a strike weapon used by Alaska Airways flight attendants. Basically wildcat strikes. The question is asked could BASSA adopt similar methods with BA.
As I see it there are several fundamental differences. In the example it was the company refusing to negotiate, Unannounced wild cat strikes were declared legal in the US courts. Alaska Airways were apparently initially trying to cut pay and benefits of their employees, All seem to be reciprocals of the situation in the UK.
It does however show the power of mass protest and indeed it only required twelve individuals to actually go on strike. It was interesting that the action succeeded in almost doubling the salary levels and almost bankrupting the company. The resulting settlement was based on adopting wholesale the contracts of another completely separate company, which paid more than Alaska Airways.
Who knows what would be the effect of such action if BASSA tried it in this dispute? But it founders on the premise that in Alaska, the employees seemed to have a good case ..... Another difference perhaps?
As I see it there are several fundamental differences. In the example it was the company refusing to negotiate, Unannounced wild cat strikes were declared legal in the US courts. Alaska Airways were apparently initially trying to cut pay and benefits of their employees, All seem to be reciprocals of the situation in the UK.
It does however show the power of mass protest and indeed it only required twelve individuals to actually go on strike. It was interesting that the action succeeded in almost doubling the salary levels and almost bankrupting the company. The resulting settlement was based on adopting wholesale the contracts of another completely separate company, which paid more than Alaska Airways.
Who knows what would be the effect of such action if BASSA tried it in this dispute? But it founders on the premise that in Alaska, the employees seemed to have a good case ..... Another difference perhaps?
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, it's 50% minus one employee, but, there is quite a lot more to it than that.
If you really want a long day reading about this stuff you could start here: - http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1084264512&lang=en&r.i=1074439033&r.l1=1073858 787&r.l2=1074436102&r.l3=1074436131&r.t=RESOURCES&type=RESOU RCES
If you really want a long day reading about this stuff you could start here: - http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1084264512&lang=en&r.i=1074439033&r.l1=1073858 787&r.l2=1074436102&r.l3=1074436131&r.t=RESOURCES&type=RESOU RCES
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: south east
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PCCC
i have not seen anything posted by their members for a while on this dispute.
i would have thought that they might have still been trying to influence any floating voters, and trying to increase their numbers by posting on here.
have they now got enough members that they can try for recognition if the strike vote is no, or any strike quickly fails.
i know that BA advised that Unite could have bargaining rights for NF, but has the PCCC made any attempts at recruitment among these staff.
it just seems very strange that there was a lot of activity earlier this year, but it has all gone very quiet over this latest stage of the dispute.
i would have thought that they might have still been trying to influence any floating voters, and trying to increase their numbers by posting on here.
have they now got enough members that they can try for recognition if the strike vote is no, or any strike quickly fails.
i know that BA advised that Unite could have bargaining rights for NF, but has the PCCC made any attempts at recruitment among these staff.
it just seems very strange that there was a lot of activity earlier this year, but it has all gone very quiet over this latest stage of the dispute.