Oh dear. Looks like I will be working with different officers in the not too distant future!

AV Flyer

If those figures are correct, and who is to doubt the Beeb, then less than 20 % cast a vote, unless there were loads of votes for loads of other candidates. Even so, It does not show huge interest in the outcome.

And another thing, were any Union 'Block Votes' involved?


Totally irrelevant:
"Doodley Doodley Doo Doo!" (Check my Post Number; think Mosquito.)

Len is as effective as a chocolate teapot.

He can tell decent jokes, but that's about it.

NR - Only four candidates polling a total of 101,000 + 52,000 + 46,000 + 39,000 = 238,000 out of 1.5 million is 16% or out of 1.4 million is 17% turn-out. My understanding is one member, one vote for one of the four candidates - but I stand to be corrected.

Wasn't that 633? "Taa Da Da Da Da Daaaaaaa!"

Seems to follow the UK's general apathy when it comes to voting. As I have said before, the vast majority of rank and file members don't give a tinkers cuss who sits on the top table. Anyone beyond their immediate FTO might as well be a universe away. :hmm:

Interesting reading regarding Mr. McCluskey's election on a few fronts.

No doubt the militant section of BASSA are pleased, though I think there are a few in Labour who may be having a strong drink and saying "Oh dear".

The extremely poor turnout of around 17% could be read several ways. I guess we will all be listening to Mr. McCluskey's initial comments regarding the BASSA problem with interest.

Am I right in understanding that Mr. McCluskey was the individual who announced strike dates after agreeing to not make the announcement, and that resulted in the previous BA offer being pulled off the table?

Um.. I believe that what happened was that TW and DS were in discussions with BA. The problem at the time was that Unite were running short on time for new dates. BA offered to extend the normal deadline to allow Unite to put the offer to members on the proviso that no strike dates were called. TW said he would do that, however, at the press conference the following morning Lennie went and rubbished the offer and announced strike dates. BA then promptly withdrew the offer citing that Unite had not negotiated in good faith. Within days TW was asking BA to put the offer back on the table so that they could put it to members. Typical Unite cockup.

It will be interestingto see what Lennie does now. He doesn't come across as being as savvy as Tony Woodley. He might be the undoing of Unite. Only needs one ill-advised strike call and a company who will sue and the union funds could take a pasting. If Safety Concerns is correct that he is not of a mind to bring this dispute to a close, then he is in grave danger of winding up with egg on face.

Why ? well he's in a no-win situation. All very well to huff and puff about calling all Unite members out on strike, but what happens when either a) nobody apart from a handful of cabin crew heed the call or b) some bright spark suggests that this is secondary action. plus c) it is pointed out that the union are repeating the same issue from the previous stoppage and thus any strike action is unprotected ? So either the response is a damp squib, or results in lots of sackings and Unite being sued. Not an auspicious start. The longer it is allowed to drag on, the more ineffectual he will appear.

The best thing Len McCluskey can do is ignore BASSA for the first three years._ There are many other much bigger and more important issues outside BA.

Best thing for whom? For LMcC, maybe.
But what about the 5? 7? 10? thousand unhappy bunnies floating about in the UNITE-manufactured doodoo? They would be entitled to shout "Neglect! Malpractice! I'm off!", with the resultant loss of hundreds of £k of subs...

jimtherev - Why "UNITE-manufactured"?

Unite (TW) negotiated and delivered to BASSA & AMICUS what most people in the UK would consider a very generous package, including guaranteed pay rises for the next few years, which the Branch leaderships chose to thumb their noses at without giving their members a consultative ballot (who might well have accepted if only asked).

The only people the 5? 7? 10? thousand bunnies have reason to be unhappy with is their own Branch leaderships and not UNITE. Surely?

Yes, AV, granted. But with a name like UNITE, I would have thought that a bit of head-knocking-together following the infamous carpark incident & following brouhaha just might have made TW's last-ditch effort unnecessary. Points to him, of course, but ? too little too late?

jimtherev - Fair comments under normal circumstances but seeing as the underlying truth of this dispute is that it is fundamentally a monumental power struggle as to who runs BA's IFCE operations - BASSA's leadership or BA's management - then I doubt whether any banging of heads or extraction of offers by Unite or anything short of complete capitulation by BA would be acceptable to BASSA's current leadership - not withstanding the true wishes of their rank and file members.

Yes - it's in their hands, isn't it?

jtr - Yes, it should be in the rank and files' hands, but continually we see this incredible voting apathy whereby the leadership and their policies are elected or approved by a majority of an ever diminishing minority of those more militant members who choose to vote.

I personally don't understand the mentality/psychology of this situation? Why pay good money month-after-month to be a member of an organisation and then show apathy when it comes to voting on what amounts to very important issues?

Cheap legal cover?

It's more like the herd mentality Bulbs. Cheap legal cover is available from many sources, not just the union. Indeed their legal record has been wanting of late.

Snas
 

The thing about legal cover is the 50%+1. Ambulance chasers will not take the risk on at that level; union legal will. However, 50%+1 does not satisfy the membership, as is the current case with this dispute.

I doubt that anybody that has been suspended/sacked is without fault, but it is the level of fault that is in question and I would challenge anybody on here that currently is in employment, who says that they have done nothing wrong in the last year.

LB
 

We seem to have some detail on one sacking as well as some history of previous disciplinary actions involving the same person. I am of course referring to Duncan known as Security Concerns on this thread. If the information we have learned on this thread, much of which was posted by Security Concerns, is accurate would you question the appropriateness of the sacking in this case?

pcat160
 

Great question and one that I will be flamed for, no doubt.

Did DH do anything different in dispute, than was the norm prior to Columbus? I have asked the question elsewhere about full time lay reps and the facilities granted to carry out the role. There is no law governing it. If all was harmonious at BA, then I am sure that it would serve the employer well, to fund a full time rep, but that is not the case here.

So in answer, I just don't know.

As regards the importance of legal cover in the union/member relationship, I am sure I have read that BASSA was refusing to help non-strikers with any representation because they didn't strike .

I would have expected that this service would be part of the contract between member and union and as such non-negotiable, or is it normal for there to be a " unless otherwise deemed.... " type clause in there ?

If this clause is not present, what would a member have to do to force an unwilling union to fulfill its 'contractual" obligations ?

I just cannot see how a union can legally discrimate against its members just as BA cannot .