|
Originally Posted by LD12986
(Post 5839907)
If you take BASSA's claim to have 9,500 members plus the 1,000-1,500 odd members that are CC89, then even if it was just 900 non-members that have accepted that is a decent proportion of non-union members that have accepted the offer.
|
On the balance of probabilities and as a reasonable statement, 900 would be between 900 and 950, else another figure would probably have been used? He didn't give a figure. He was referring to the number of CC members that BASSA claimed not to be members of Unite. What he said was that if the figure of 900 non-members was true, then all would have accepted the offer. |
LD12968
Yep, fair point.
|
Guardian readers
Hooray, at long last I've actually found someone who reads the Guardian............LITEBULBS:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:
|
well, well, well. Seems that there are others who can see through the emotion.
One analyst who asked not to be named said that Walsh was wrong to remove travel concessions from staff who had been on strike. |
One analyst does not make a court decision or give ST back to strikers. Whether it is right or wrong to have removed ST does not change the fact that it has been removed and it will take a long road to get it back - if it ever gets returned.
|
Originally Posted by fincastle84
(Post 5840238)
Hooray, at long last I've actually found someone who reads the Guardian............LITEBULBS:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:
|
well, well, well. Seems that there are others who can see through the emotion. SC, we understand that you think that ST removal was wrong, you've told us ad-nauseum. The majority view on here is that it was not. However, if you, Litebulbs and an un-named analyst are correct, Unite will get it back. If we are right, they will not. In the meantime, the threat of removal of ST kept the number of strikers down and certainly helped BA beat BASSA. Whichever viewpoint you may hold regarding the legitimacy of the action you must agree that it was an excellent strategy. Can we please move on to something else. |
Originally Posted by fincastle84
(Post 5840238)
Hooray, at long last I've actually found someone who reads the Guardian............LITEBULBS:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:
|
Safety Concerns:
well, well, well. Seems that there are others who can see through the emotion. After learning that the poor, bullied Cabin Crew member interviewed on the radio was none other than Mr. Duncan Holley, a BASSA representative with a financial stake in the Union's membership numbers forgive me for dismissing an un-named analyst's tossed out quote. |
Call100:
Actually, I read anywhere from four to six papers each morning plus regular news feeds and from the quality of many of the commentators statements here I imagine I'm not alone in that habit. |
Please. An "analyst" who refuses to be named. Hardly impressive. |
I suppose the utterings of any un-named commentator can now be dismissed as being irrelevant.
|
Well here's an analyst who isn't afraid to put his name to it, and hits the nail squarely on the head.
And it's not from the Grauniad or the Daily Mule, but the Torygraph. You don't have to be Sir David Attenborough to spot the carnage at British Airways. Another quarter, another roaring success for British Airways. It may have tested its passengers' faith with 23 strike days. But the Wildlife Trust can spot a winner when it sees one. By Alistair Osborne, Business Editor Published: 9:21PM BST 30 Jul 2010 The nation's flag-carrier is, once again, the proud recipient of the Biodiversity Benchmark award. Apparently it's for that staff favourite – the Harmondsworth Moor parkland at its Heathrow head office. But why stop there? Inside BA's Waterside HQ is a corporate ecosystem as fragile and varied as anything you'll find in the FTSE 100 – populated as it is with a crew-cut Irishman (Willie Walsh) at the top of the tree and, lower down, some termites from the wilder fringes of the Unite union, intent on a wrecking job. You don't have to be Sir David Attenborough to spot the carnage either. The strikes cost BA £150m last quarter, the main reason the airline lurched to its seventh consecutive quarterly loss. No business can carry on like that. Just ask Darwin. Which is why sympathy for Unite's less-evolved wildlife is ebbing away. Derek Simpson, the Twitter addict who doubles up as a union chief, was at it again on Friday. Ignoring the fact that the dispute is now about when striking crew get back their travel perks – aka 90pc-off flights to the Caribbean – Simpson tried to claim the losses could have been avoided for a £10m compromise. That's the difference, he said, between the savings Unite was prepared to offer and those BA wanted. Maybe it's all that thinking in 140 characters but even Simpson must know he's talking baloney. His figure was never real. Unite offered temporary cost savings to ride out the recession. Walsh wants root-and-branch reform. The strike threat remains but you sense that, bit by bit, the 12,000 crew are beginning to work it out for themselves. They may not all like the BA boss – but then kamikaze missions aren't that great either. As Walsh said on Friday, with capital harder to come by, businesses must reward investors with profits and dividends to attract the support they need to grow. What's more, if the crew past through the mainly self-inflicted turbulence, they might spot they are working for a business finally going somewhere. Friday's numbers showed a surprisingly strong 13.5pc bounce in yields (revenues per seat) as business-class travellers returned – even if that only brings BA back to where it was two years ago. Costs were also lower than expected. Moreover, BA is not dependent on cyclical recovery. Its £4.5bn all-share merger with Spain's Iberia offers the chance to rip a planned €400m (£330m) costs out of the two airlines – boosting profits. Probably more. On top, there is the strategic tie-up across the Atlantic with American Airlines, which finally has approval. Given BA has pursued that deal for 14 years, you have to think it's worth something. Rather than more trolley-rage, the crew should accept Walsh's latest offer and focus on making BA really fly – so adding a performance bonus to their pay. Who knows? They may even win an award for being less wild. [email protected] |
Litebulbs
How do they survive? Rather a good comparison, don't you agree? |
Litebulbs
The interesting number that BA has, but we don't, is how many people BA knows are in the Union who tried to sign and accept the deal. BA has released a number for those it knows are not in the Union and accepted. On even the most optimistic assumptions for the Union, non-Union acceptance appears to be at least 65%.
The other interesting number is that of individual strikers. I can't see anything to support the Unite number, given its known membership database problems. I'll ask you another financial question in this respect. Whether you believe the BA number of 5,000 or the Unite one of 6,500 and rising, what do you think Unite should be doing to ensure that it is not actually being defrauded out of 1,500x£30xstrike days by people claiming strike pay who did not strike. That's £45k per person/day much of which, I would remind you, has been diverted from elsewhere in the Union to pay it. Do you think your duty of care to your own members places you under a duty to seek explanation from the leadership as to the discrepancy? And what will you do when you get the inevitable fob off? Remembering that some of the stike pay is being met from income derived from non-BA cabin crew members of Unite. |
That 3%...........
Litebulbs,
Frank Chapple and Eric Hammond will be turning in their graves. Not only being in the same room as the T & G, but being in the same Union. Paul Gallagher would f & b a lot, and then have another drink. He'd talk to anyone who was buying, and anyone who knew anything about movies. . Chico thankyou for restoring the proper spelling to the Grauniad. That 3%.......... On the alleged 3% of subs that allegedly go direct to the bassa branch sec. - do we have confirmation of that, or is it just a rumour? The journos do not seem to have picked up on it yet, so maybe it's a rumour. |
Originally Posted by fincastle84
(Post 5840589)
My point exactly as they lose £££££ annually & are supported only by their parent company as an act of blind love. With the forthcoming public service cutbacks their main source of advertising revenue will be drastically reduced & hopefully it will disappear altogether, rather like Bassa.
Rather a good comparison, don't you agree? |
JayPee28bpr
I don't think the strike pay will be like a soup kitchen handout. If people defraud, then action should be taken. As to the plan, who knows, but I did ask the man at the top of my sector (I was specifically asked to do so by some members), where the money was coming from and was told it was from branch funds, rather than an increase in subscription.
Obviously, the cost will have an affect on spend over the next year or so, but stikes and funding them, is an intregal part of union business, because it could be you next time. |
AO
Agreed. You wait till the General Secretary Election gets into full swing. That will show how united Unite is.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:05. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.