I suspect Willie Walsh has been brought in for this as his sole job – sort out the union issue. He may fall on his (golden) sword once everything is settled for the good of the company.

BA is different from Virgin et al – it's the equivalent of an old nationalised company – with the old working 'practices' and union ties. All others are pretty much fresh start-ups compared to it. IIRC there's a little political manoeuvring going on in the union too – I think one of the two joint-leaders of Unite will be the general secretary next year and BA-bashing will be high on their CVs.

Teh bad management stems from allowing the confrontation to arise. remeber the union side have consistently offered to negotiate seriously and have offered most of what the management wanted – virtiually all the savings.

Management have since ratcheted things up by sacking / suspending all the union activists and unilaterally altering the terms and conditions ( perks become part of your contract under custom and practice)

A good management could easily have got 90% of what they wanted without this bitter dispute – its about braking the union – nothing else and don't be fooled

The Union escalated this disputeit. BA were prepared to negotiate as long as no action was announced. The union announced it, BA withdrew the offer – simple as. It's not bullying, BA is following through on what was promised at the time.

No-one's being asked to take paycuts, iirc. It's a change to staffing levels, a freeze on increases, and changes to the pay scales for new starters. Walsh himself says he's taking action that chief execs before should have taken. The management isn't without fault over T5, fuel surcharges, for sure, but saying 'we got stuff wrong before so we shouldn't fix what we can now' doesn't seem sensible. The rest of the company can get their heads round that point, why not the cabin crew (imho this is where the Union is misrepresenting the long term interests of their membership)

Finally – 80% persuaded by false facts to strike. Read your own numbers. 64% of those balloted voted for a strike. The rest – votes against and abstainees can be read to be against it, wouldn't you say? And it remains to be seen how many actually do strike for 3 weeks. BA says it will run ca 70% service. With 20% of the crew? Sounds to me like gross overstaffing.

Well, they'll soon be out of a job soon if they carry on. Then they can strike for as long as they want.

Well between them the have royally naused this one up. The company is sitting on losses us mere mortals can only dream of in terms of scale and now just about every potential customer with any sense will be running to the competition. Their rights to perks should be the least of their worries, pay cuts and job losses all around me thinks.

I'm sitting on 20,000 airmiles I'm not planning on using for another 12months or so; as BA are the main airline used, I wonder what worth they will have by then….

BA were prepared to negotiate as long as no action was announced

so you think that is reasonable management and a reasonable negotiation strategy rather than bullying. Here take this and dont reject it or i will withdraw it…that is reasonable , not aggresive or bullying? If that is what you think I dont agree at all. I am a Union rep and I have been involved in negotiations involving pay cuts and redundnacies. management must realise this will pi55 people off and tread gently rather than aggresively posture.

Finally – 80% persuaded by false facts to strike. Read your own numbers. 64% of those balloted voted for a strike. The rest – votes against and abstainees can be read to be against it, wouldn't you say?

The union used false facts for the ballot papers and materials sst out with it and the BA management did not even challenge them on this on any of the court cases 😯 As for the result better than any government for tha last 100 years and also better than the combined vote of the current governemtn [ with two parties in it ] and a higher turnout than the general election as well. We could debate whether people should be forced to vote but is fairly resounding from those that could be bothered and still an overall majority even if all of those who did not vote voted NO. What more do you actually want ? 100% vote?

A good management could easily have got 90% of what they wanted without this bitter dispute – its about braking the union – nothing else and don't be fooled

Nail and head. They still have about 90% of what they wanted and wont even negotiate what kind of strategy is that?

so you think that is reasonable management and a reasonable negotiation strategy rather than bullying.

Yes, dammit, yes. How much damage did even the rumour of a strike cost BA? Millions. So of course they're going to be pissed off afterwards because it makes it clear to everyone that it's a nasty, pointless, hard-nosed union tactic designed to show aggression.

No one else in the airline industry supports the strike. The union may have got support for a strike but do the cabin crew really understand the ins and outs of what they're striking over, misled by the union who seem bent on destroying the airline. It's a childish game of chicken, except with thousands of jobs, and I feel that BA and Willie Walsh are slightly less childish than the unions.

Of course, come the middle of June, he can sack the lot of them with no need to pay redundancy etc so this might be exactly what he's aiming for. Sad if it is.

So flaperon – the workforce are supposed to just accept everything the management want despite their contracts?

workforce offer 90% of what management want – management refuse they want 100%. This is before any ballot or threat of strike. Management refuse point blank to nbegotiate at all.

Union therten to strike – management harden their position.

The union have been flexible and prepared to negotiate. However he management were not. clearly after provoking a strike and breaking the union.

A bad failing of management that has cost millions. if they had accepted the 90% of what they wanted then looked to negotiate for the rest then their would have been no strike and no loss of business.

– sorry – its poor management that force a confrontation when there is no need and Walsh has cost the company millions by his attitude.

How do you think he can sck thenm all in June? No way jose can he.

because it makes it clear to everyone that it's a nasty, pointless, hard-nosed union tactic designed to show aggression.

what in the face of the gentle begin management that wanted 100 % or no deal? Refused 90% offer and withdrew it when they voted against it and is now refusing ot meet to negotiate. The absolute picture of moderation and good management. I am sure they will be using it at Harvard Business School as the best way to negotiate change eh?

misled by the union

You do realise the ballot was accompanied by a letter explaining the situation and the management offer dont you. the document that has not been challenged by BA as misleading in court. Why do you keep repeating that the union are misleading the members? It is BS.Utter utter BS. I mean clearly capable of beeing proved to be incorrect please stop saying it as it has no basis in fact.
+ everything TJ said
EDIT:

However, you can dismiss an employee after the 12 week period if you can show you have made genuine attempts to negotiate. This must include the proper use of any joint disputes resolution procedure.

Think they may struggle to get over that legal hurdle dont you?

Junkyard. You always avoid the point.

Here take this and dont reject it or i will withdraw it…

But that isn't what they said, is it? They said – here's an offer; we're prepared to discuss and negotiate it AS LONG AS YOU DON'T ANNOUNCE ANY STRIKE DATES IN THE MEANTIME. Just like a kid seeing how far they can push their parents, the Union tried them out on it, announced strike dates and so BA withdrew the offer and the chance to negotiate from it. I don't see that as bullying; I see it as playing hard maybe but to carry out the action that you said you would if certain conditions weren't met…. that's perfectly reasonable.

I don't get your point about 'false facts' on the ballot papers? That was your phrase, not mine. I said that IMHO the Union was advising their members badly [about the rights and wrongs, strengths and weaknesses of their position]. I never made any suggestion the Union was lying to them. So far as i can see the only false fact is this claim that 80% of the union are going on strike. Where does that figure come from – because (for the third time) if you are suggesting that a ballot return of 7500 for action from 11700 balloted equates to 80% on strike, you're missing the point. Some 40% or so of members DIDN'T vote for action, and I'm inclined to think that the abstainees are more likely to be against but feeling under pressure not to vote that way. If you are strongly for, you're far more likely to take the effort to vote for, i think. And we've still to see how many actually strike on Monday.

So to answer your point – do i want 100% turn out and 100% support before a strike becomes valid? No, 50%+ is legitimate but I still think the membership is being let down by the Union in taking them this far, particularly if only 60% of the Union wants to strike over it.

edit – can't be bothered

Won't be long before BA go bust now, then nobody will have a job. Way to go strikers.

Why do you keep repeating that the union are misleading the members?

I said it once. In one post.

theotherjonv – Member

Junkyard. You always avoid the point.

Here take this and dont reject it or i will withdraw it…

But that isn't what they said, is it? They said – here's an offer; we're prepared to discuss and negotiate it AS LONG AS YOU DON'T ANNOUNCE ANY STRIKE DATES IN THE MEANTIME.

this simply is not right.

Now take the large pinch of salt and read this please for the other side of the argument. Remember all the info you get in the media is from the management side

http://www.unitetheunion.com/PDF/078-BA%20flyer%20the%20facts.pdf

http://www.unitetheunion.com/campaigns/ba_united_we_stand.aspx

still an overall majority even if all of those who did not vote voted NO. What more do you actually want ? 100% vote?

I don't think anyone is suggesting a 100% vote is required; no-one has contested anywere that it's a majority. But it isn't full support like you originally claimed. In fact, it's close to being as far from full support as you can be whilst still having a majority… Support also seems to have slowly ebbed away with each successive ballot.

If you presented your points in a more reasoned way then others with different views may be more likely to think about the other points you're trying to make.

For me the Union (either the Unite or BASSA factions) has yet to close the credibility gap created by their original argument that reduced staffing on services from Heathrow (one of the changes to working conditions they were originally striking over) was unworkable, when the same Union's members based at Gatwick had been working at those levels for some time without problem.

My understanding is that the Union has now moved on from these original issues, and the leadership/negotiating team had agreed to all of BA's original proposals, and that disagreements now relate to the action(s) taken by BA following the original strike (removal of travel perks, disciplinary action against those accused of bullying/harrassment). If this is the case (and I'm only basing this on what I've read), then it seems the whole thing could have been avoided in the first place.

read this please for the other side of the argument

"• In November 2009, management imposed cuts in staffing levels that crew believe are damaging the airline’s standing as a premier carrier.
• Staffing levels have been cut from four to three on the Euro-fleet, while long-haul crews have seen reductions of between one to three.
• Unite members say that service is suffering because of these cuts."

…but aren't these reduced staffing levels the same ones that Unite members based at Gatwick have operated on for some time?

In reality the biggest impact on service levels on board is the attitude of the crew rather than one too many/too few cabin crew members. Good and bad service are largely driven by the on-board leadership for each flight (crews aren't 'teams', they are typically a different mix on every service – particularly long-haul). That's always been the case – since long before the current malaise. As an example, I flew back to the UK long-haul on one of the last services to depart before the last round of strikes began. Every member of the team was a credit to BA and the brand – service wasn't suffering and was entirely consistent with BA's "standing as a premier carrier". I have no idea (or interest) in whether they were Unite/BASSA members or not, and what their attitude was to the strike, they simply did a great job.

To be honest, on long-haul return legs to the UK the level of service probably has more to do with how hard the crew has been partying on their layover 😉

As with any argument from opposing sides you're never going to get an impartial perspective without picking your way somewhere down the middle…

"Won't be long before BA go bust now, then nobody will have a job. Way to go strikers."

IF BA go bust it won't be because of the strikes, the amount of money involved that spurred the strike is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall BA losses and wastes

Management entered negotiation and did not budge from their opening offer – which they cannot force the employees to take btw. They got 90% and would not budge this seems to be neither negotiation, a compromise nor reasonable IMHO.

So far as i can see the only false fact is this claim that 80% of the union are going on strike. Where does that figure come from …and I'm inclined to think that the abstainees are more likely to be against but feeling under pressure not to vote that way

I am not sure why you think they have or can mislead the union members? I would be certain BA wrote direct to its employees about the offer – cant think why they would not have done this. The Union material has to be fair as the ballot is monitored by law and management can challenge it if it is misleading. Not sure why or how you think the union has hoodwinked all these gullible employees.. mass hypnosis? Is it not just possible that the Union is actually representing its members here? The Vote was again
Unite said that 78.77% of the 11,691 ballot papers issued were returned. Of those 80.7% (7,482) supported taking action with 1,789 voting against it
Saying how abstainers would have voted or claiming they are under pressure [ in a secret ballot FFS] is at best supposition. Either way it is still a MAJORITY. As to how many turn up to work tbh honest I would not believe the figures from wither side.
Your point seems to be that the management are fair and reasonable, the unions are liars and misleading their members , who are gullible or afraid to vote against them in a secret ballot, the abstentions were all likely to vote no and the majority vote was somehow misleading of the members true feeling . Did I miss anything ? You should consider a job in journalism… Murdoch would love your spin on things.

don't think anyone is suggesting a 100% vote is required; no-one has contested anywere that it's a majority. But it isn't full support like you originally claimed. In fact, it's close to being as far from full support as you can be whilst still having a majority[/Quote]
I agree full support was not a great choice of words and I should have openly retracted it. However to claim an 80 % vote is a close to being as far from full support as you can be whilst still having a majority is an equally inaccurate point- it is over 60% even if you assume all those who did not vote would have voted against it and that is a big assumption.

In reality the biggest impact on service levels on board is the attitude of the crew rather than one too many/too few cabin crew members

Hard to see how fewer staff and higher work loads will improve their attitude though most overworked people are a bit flustered and don’t have enough time for each customer.
It seems we are not going to agree on this but we are doing better than BA Union as we are still talking 😉
Sorry for length of post and well done if you made it to the end.

BA aren't going bust though are they. Sure they lost £500M this year but that's with volcanoes and strike impact. They are forecasting a return to profit next year, and on the back of that the city has responded with an increase in their share price, suggesting they believe walsh and his cohorts are on track to deliver.

Let's see, strike and all, how much service they run when it comes to it.

However to claim an 80 % vote is a close to being as far from full support as you can be whilst still having a majority is an equally inaccurate point

60% is getting pretty close to being as far from full support as a majority can be – it's certainly a lot further away than 90%! Clearly interpreting the result as 80% support is different, but the Union has not proven 80% support from its membership. Clearly there's an unknown element from those that haven't voted, but they haven't felt strongly enough about the strike to turn out and support it.

Unfortunately I think the Union has misjudged things with their own members to an extent – hence the falling support.

Clearly dropping a staff member does have some impact, but on long-haul these are Cabin Service Directors – some of whom (admittedly not all) had a tendency to sit in their 'office' for most of the flight and make little contribution to the direct service to customers. When many of those lucky enough to have kept their jobs in the private sector have felt some pain over the past few years it doesn't seem an unreasonable approach to have changed conditions like this rather than trying to force through a pay cut, but clearly that's not everyone's view!

Anyway, shouldn't we all have something better to do on a Friday evening 😀

on the back of that the city has responded with an increase in their share price

Hmmm…closing price was only marginally up on the day, and it was mainly downhill until mid-afternoon. The city has largely supported the management through the dispute, but the price has taken a real battering over the past few weeks (not long since it was 250 – today around 190).

But, that said, neither the strike nor the ash cloud will finish them off in the short term.

IF BA go bust it won't be because of the strikes, the amount of money involved that spurred the strike is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall BA losses and wastes

You don't know how many people have stopped flying BA because of the strikes though. I know I'd not use them at the moment, too risky. How many thousands of other people will take the same approach? They've lost a hell of a lot of money in the last 18 months, a significant proportion can be attributed to the strike action.

At some point sensible people must look at the situation and ask themselves if they've made their point or not. 'Are we now harming the company we work for beyond an irrepairable threshold?' 'Are we in effect, damaging our own future?'

And I don't think the union and seemingly a lot of it's members are doing this. You'd think during strike action, it must become apparent that the company involved simply cannot do anything more about the situation.

OK, let me respond one more time and then maybe we can agree to disagree on this.

I'm not saying Unite is misleading, or lying to their membership. I think they are making as strong a case for taking strike action as they can, [by the sounds of it driven by BASSA], in order to take BA hostage against an already difficult economic situation. And in doing so, i think they are failing their membership in general because the proposals being made by BA were not that far from being acceptable. Then the feud over the strike action being announced started and now neither side can / will back down.

The second point as to whether the management are fair and reasonable? Depends how you define fair, but in the sense that they said 'if you do x we'll do y' and then followed through on it; they're honest. Draconian maybe, in what they said they'd do, but like everything don't threaten something you won't follow through on. Reasonable – possibly not, very hardline and bullheaded now, but it's difficult for either to back down. It's difficult to comment on the details of the union hardliners who have supposedly been suspended for being hardliners (co. of course is claiming bullying / intimidatory behaviour in the crew rooms, etc. – maybe we'll never know)

Lastly, the detail of the ballot. You're right, it is supposition, that's why I said 'I'm inclined to think'. But I still think that in a vote like this, if you feel strongly enough about something that you'll go on strike for it and lose wages, perks, etc. you'll make the effort to place your X. If you're dead against, you'll place your X somewhere else. But if you are undecided, fearful of possible intimidation, whatever, you'll abstain. So maybe I'm saying the vote is more like 64% FOR and 36% NOT FOR but that opinion still holds.

Final point. We're not talking. I'm ceasing negotiations henceforth, and taking my toys to bed with me 😉

Either way it is still a MAJORITY.

Like the election? 😉
I just hope that if things become that close, there's no bail out. BA should go to the wall due to poor management (as northwind said), they're just not viable. The other airlines would have to pick up the slack, and there would be plenty of jobs for the BA staff (TUPE perhaps?). New conditions of course.

"You don't know how many people have stopped flying BA because of the strikes though."

No I don't, but since their footfall's been in freefall (hey, poetry) for years before the first strike, and they were already announcing huge losses, clearly it's not down to the strikes. Cause comes before effect traditionally.

No I don't, but since their footfall's been in freefall (hey, poetry) for years before the first strike, and they were already announcing huge losses, clearly it's not down to the strikes

not quite true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways#Financial_performance

Can any STWer who understands union stuff explain the relationship between BASSA and UNITE for me please?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/310fe338-653a-11df-b648-00144feab49a.html

How many thousands of other people will take the same approach? They've lost a hell of a lot of money in the last 18 months, a significant proportion can be attributed to the strike action

I'm not sure the losses due to strike action have been that significant compared to the losses due to the recession.

In terms of passenger numbers there won't be a huge long-term impact once the dispute is settled. Broadly there are two types of passenger when it comes to the buying decision; one is more concerned about price than service (typically leisure), the other more about service than price (typically business). Leisure traffic will come back if the price is right (and frequency of travel is typically low so these people are less likely to be directly affected). Regular business passengers will only stay away long-term if the competition is better – and there is no single competitor that offers the same consistency of premium product to the same range of destinations direct from the UK.

I'm not saying there will be no impact, but they will recover. The real operational challenge is getting the cost base right; the business challenge is filling the black hole in BA's pension liabilities…

But if you are undecided, fearful of possible intimidation, whatever, you'll abstain. So maybe I'm saying the vote is more like 64% FOR and 36% NOT FOR but that opinion still holds.

fair enough but you have absolutely no evidence for that assertion it is just supposition/ clairvoyance as neither us have nay facts here little point debating this. It is a free election done by post how can anyone know how anyone votes?

Reasonable – possibly not, very hard line and bullheaded now, but it's difficult for either to back down.

I agree it is why in negotiations management and union should not draw lines in sand as this is the outcome hence poor management IMHO.

Final point. We're not talking. I'm ceasing negotiations henceforth, and taking my toys to bed with me

😆
Stoner cant follow your link as not subscribing to Murdoch press- what a rebel lefty eh. Unite is an a almagamation of unions – T & G and Amicus iirc] of which I assume BASSA is one that joined/amalgamated or possibly BASSA affiliate to Unite but are a bit more independent have greater degrees of freedom.

Stoner, your link seems to exactly support my argument? Almost a 25% loss of footfall over 8 years, with year on year falls for 6 of those 8 years, at a time where air travel was growing, and posted losses in 2009 and 2010.

From the BBC News website:

Talks between British Airways and union leaders were brought to an abrupt end when protesters stormed the meeting.

Dozens of demonstrators from the Socialist Workers Party staged a sit-in at the London offices of the conciliation service Acas.

That's not going to help negotiations, and I'm not sure that anyone can blame BA for that one 😀