LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksMy guess is that management didn't expect or hope for any more than that from the court action.Originally Posted by GheeTsar
Of Course Not!
Yes, I believe in entitlment
My guess is that management didn't expect or hope for any more than that from the court action.
With what I understand and heard over the news I sort of thought this would happen tbh because BA management didnt move on their terms and seemed to believe in the court action so they must of known the outcome before it was made official by the courts. Hence the reason they didnt seem to bother and shrugged off the strike action.
Yoy would say if you don't like it move on but from what i hear there one of the highest paid in the industry double on what Virgin apy for the same types of Job less the hassle, but what i understand their issues are with terms of contract.
Anyway better news for the Christmas Holiday makers hopefully
__________________
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.
Error exists between Keyboard & Chair replace User and press Any Key!
.... Where's the Any Key???
The big downside of this win for BA management is that now there is further uncertainty about when the strike will happen; who's going to book a flight with BA in the short-term knowing that there is strike waiting in the wings?
Indeed, i'd imagine plenty of insurances wouldn't cover you for the inconvenience now too.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
So the court threw out the votes of:
- 12,700 staff,
- 92% of which were in favour of legal strike action,
- because 900 of those staff should not have been ballotted.
...and this is a victory of 'democracy' over 'communism'?
And as everyone has said, it's an entirely pyrrhic victory for BA given the trade they have already lost, and will continue to lose into next year while everyone knows that a massive official strike is imminent and inevitable, whatever technicality they've found to weasel out with this time. And it's the staff, and not the management who are short-sighted and reckless?
aidanjt (18-12-2009),santa claus (18-12-2009)
Another crackin' post from JPreston. I don't even feel the need to contribute.So the court threw out the votes of:
- 12,700 staff,
- 92% of which were in favour of legal strike action,
- because 900 of those staff should not have been ballotted.
...and this is a victory of 'democracy' over 'communism'?
And as everyone has said, it's an entirely pyrrhic victory for BA given the trade they have already lost, and will continue to lose into next year while everyone knows that a massive official strike is imminent and inevitable, whatever technicality they've found to weasel out with this time
And really, "Are those lazy commie un-greatfuls right to strike?" - I've been slated for posts much less provocative.
Well, we'll have to wait and see, won't we, though I sure wouldn't bet against another strike.So the court threw out the votes of:
- 12,700 staff,
- 92% of which were in favour of legal strike action,
- because 900 of those staff should not have been ballotted.
...and this is a victory of 'democracy' over 'communism'?
And as everyone has said, it's an entirely pyrrhic victory for BA given the trade they have already lost, and will continue to lose into next year while everyone knows that a massive official strike is imminent and inevitable, whatever technicality they've found to weasel out with this time
But ..... things often aren't that simple.
First, there has been a very significant public backlash. Both union and BA staff will have to bear that in mind when deciding on how to vote at another ballot.
Also, much of the criticism has not been about striking, but about the duration and especially the timing of the strike. Senior BA cabin crew that voted for the strike are quoted as expressing disquiet over those decisions. And one BA cabin crew worker was interviewed on the radio earlier and he was really angry .... at the union.
His comment was that while he voted, and voted for the strike, they were NOT told that it was to be 12 says and right over the Christmas period. He said that he doesn't know where that decision was made but it certainly wasn't at branch level. It was, he asserted, at a senior level in the union, and they weren't asked about the details on the ballot. So, it may be that some or perhaps even many staff will be a good deal more cynical, and careful, before they vote next time.
So will there be another vote? I guess so, unless a deal is reached in the meantime. But it doesn't necessarily follow that it'll be for the same scale of action and it sure won't be over the holiday period .... unless they wait for Ester.
And, moreover, that guy on the radio was so angry at the union, partly for 'duping' them into voting for the strike as it was implemented, but he also commented to the effect that they pay quite a large sum each in union dues to guy a that are supposed to be professional, yet apparently can't even organise a legal strike ballot. He was so angry he said he, and a number of his colleagues, were thing about quitting the union over it.
So based on a number of comments, both in papers and on radio and TV interviews, it isn't quite as simple as an establishment judge stomping on the working man's right to withdraw his labour. And the judge may not have had a lot of choice. If the statute says that strike ballots have to be legal for the strike to be legal, and defines what it means by that, then judges have little or no authority to overrule that. They can interpret, and they can balance one piece of conflicting legislation against another, and they can take account of precedents in determining how definitions apply to the facts of a given case, but they can't simply decide that they don't like what the act says and make it up as they go along.
Oh, and even Derek Simpson is quoted as having said the 12 days over Christmas "was probably over the top". Personally, I read that as 'we thought it would gain us publicity but we misjudged it and won't make that mistake again'.
So is it pyrrhic? Maybe. Time will tell. But would I would say is that even assuming strikes go ahead, and I wouldn't bet against that, they may well be differently structured and at the very least, won't be over Christmas.
And in a sense, this decision actually works well for the unions.
The Christmas period will hit people hardest, and people remember that. This thread has already seen a number of people expressing the intent to fly with other airlines, and that hits (first) BA. Second, analysts have pointed out that business flying, which is the really lucrative bit for BA, is at a seasonal low, but if the union go again in the new year, they can target more lucrative times.
Also, this has given the union a lot of publicity (most of it bad, though) and now they get to have another bite at that apple in a few weeks time.
And finally, and it's a goodie ..... BA have "won" by getting the injunction, have they? I wonder. We now know that some time in the new year, probably several weeks in, maybe a couple of months, a substantial strike is in the offing. So, who is going to willingly drop themselves in this poop again by including BA in their travel plans for the next few months if they have a choice? I'll say this, if I have a need to fly in the next few months, the only way it'll be on BA is it that;s the only seat I can get. Otherwise, I'll opt for an airline where I'm less likely to get my plans screwed up by strikes. So the union have succeeded, in my opinion, in putting BA sales under severe pressure not just for a few days, but probably for several months. while potential passengers wait for the strike dust to settle. The union can drag this threat of strike out, probably for months, for without even having to strike, and therefore without their members having to give up pay while striking. If I thought they were sharp enough, I'd wonder if the union ever actually intended this strike to go ahead, because if it had, it might well have done more damage to the union and to crews than it did to BA. This way is actually a result for the union.
I'm confused.So the court threw out the votes of:
- 12,700 staff,
- 92% of which were in favour of legal strike action,
- because 900 of those staff should not have been ballotted.
...and this is a victory of 'democracy' over 'communism'?
And as everyone has said, it's an entirely pyrrhic victory for BA given the trade they have already lost, and will continue to lose into next year while everyone knows that a massive official strike is imminent and inevitable, whatever technicality they've found to weasel out with this time
Are you saying its OK because the majority of the voting was legal? Nice principle.
Also what do you think BA management should do? They are loosing about a little over a million pounds each day, they pay their staff far more than the competition (even the competition who provide a better service). What exactly do you think they should do?
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Honour their contractual agreements with their staff.
The company is running at an operational loss. Should they just print money? Bail out from the government? Fire people?
Or say to the staff we can afford to keep you if we pay you less, work you harder?
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
If they're operating at a loss, they should renegotiate the contracts with their employees, and explain the situation to them. You don't just piss over your employees contracts on a whim, and expect them to be happy about it.
Well thanks to employment law you can't just order someone to take a pay cut, or even fire them for refusing to take a pay cut.
What has happened here is the offer they have given, the workforce has found too low, the union has grossly over-reacted to this.
The problem is here, that the workforce are considerably overpaid when compared to other airlines, and even other BA teams, the Heathrow team apparently earns considerably more than those based outside of London.....
So if they are brought inline to 'market rate' it would be a very painful adjustment, I'm sure many people have debt obligations or rental commitments above that of which they could sustain if they worked for Virgin atlantic say.
The problem is as someone who is looking to book a nice recrational trip to NY in feb, I don't give a flying **** about the BA staff, i'm booking with Virgin because I have had better service.
So, what do they do? Customers like me aren't willing to foot the bill when they have a choice, there are too many airlines on the same routes, the routes where they don't have much competition just aren't *that* profitable.
Well the company kind of has to die don't you think? Make huge cutbacks somewhere? Regretably they don't spend over the odds on plains or fuel, but they are on staff.
So they have to cut costs on staff. The union in my mind look like petulant children throwing a temper tantrum when mummy and daddy tell them that they simply can't afford to go on holiday this year.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Saracen (18-12-2009)
Certainly the union officials are out of line. I don't disagree with that at all. Two wrongs don't make a right, and whatnot. Frankly, the whole matter was mismanaged by both BA management and the union officials. Which is often the case when strike action occurs.
The Union behaved in the manner for which it exists and that is to support the interests of its membership. Their timing was off, not their principles and, although unpopular with cossetted, smug, I'm-alright-Jack types, it illustrates that if you are to stop management walking all over you, a Union is still necessary. A threat to withhold pay has been met with a threat to withdraw labour and talking, not dictat, is the way to resolve the 'problem'.
Union stuff really gets your goat doesn't it? Why don't you stay home and spend your wad here? You're unpatriotic.
I suspect moving to France would be a more patriotic move for pro-unionists.The Union behaved in the manner for which it exists and that is to support the interests of its membership. Their timing was off, not their principles and, although unpopular with cossetted, smug, I'm-alright-Jack types, it illustrates that if you are to stop management walking all over you, a Union is still necessary. A threat to withhold pay has been met with a threat to withdraw labour and talking, not dictat, is the way to resolve the 'problem'.
Union stuff really gets your goat doesn't it? Why don't you stay home and spend your wad here? You're unpatriotic
Regardless of whether they are morally in the right, I totally agree with Animus on this, the union is behaving like a spoilt child and BA has done the equivalent of calling up the mean grandparents to get them to be quiet.
Actually, the timing was entirely orchestrated by BA. Way back in spring Willie Walsh was puffing about their 'fight for survivial', and yet the contract changes were not imposed by BA until mid-November with full knowledge that after due legal process the resultant strike action would occur over xmas when it could be spun to blow up in the crew's faces.The Union behaved in the manner for which it exists and that is to support the interests of its membership. Their timing was off, not their principles and, although unpopular with cossetted, smug, I'm-alright-Jack types, it illustrates that if you are to stop management walking all over you, a Union is still necessary. A threat to withhold pay has been met with a threat to withdraw labour and talking, not dictat, is the way to resolve the 'problem'.
Union stuff really gets your goat doesn't it? Why don't you stay home and spend your wad here? You're unpatriotic
Onto the ballot. By law, Unite have to ballot all crew employed by BA from a database provided by BA. The 900 disputed members are those whose VR was to be approved two days after the list was provided to Unite. Unite had no way of knowing that these individual applications for VR had been made, let alone would be officially approved by BA in two day's time, and so no way to exclude them from the ballot. Presumably BA knew though, but what possible reason could they have had for concealing this information...?
Ah yes, France. Home to pro-unionists, and 'spiritual and tax' home to the non-domiciled tory Lord, donor and owner of the very same right-wing bum-rag that has most eagerly smeared BA crewmembers.I suspect moving to France would be a more patriotic move for pro-unionists.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
