[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7744740/BA-strike-set-to-go-ahead-after-Appeal-Court-backs-Unite-trade-union.html ]or have we had this already ?[/url]
misguided or not, seems to me that the union has conducted its ballots "reasonably" & BA management relying on loopholes/small print is shite if that's their principal tactic
I've given up caring.
i haven't
no flights means no conference delegates which means i get to sit on my arse and turn satellite links on and off instead 🙂
I must admit that I agree that the point of Union Law that BA said made the strike illegal did come across as petty, small minded and unlikely to help resolve the situation.
I'm hoping that many crew will ignore that strike and turn up for work.
bored now
I think that Willy Walsh and the union bod seem as bad as each other. Two little Hitlers butting heads. They don't seem to give a monkeys about how anyone else is affected on any side. Id make them stop all the posturing and settle it in a gladatorial arena in front of a baying mob. More interesting
Well I won't be using BA in a hurry and hope they can resolve it.
Booked with someone else because of all this so they've done the damage. I'm now more worried about volcanoes than strikes.
It is not an edifying spectacle at all. 2 ignorant and stubborn people banging up against each other with neither one willing to back down. To call for 5 day strikes is an insane and stupid thing to do - and something that is only guaranteed to help break BA as a company. While I agree the BA tactic to go to the courts over an incredibly trivial irregularity is, however, entirely understandable as a way to stop the strike happening and is exactly what the Union would do as well if the shoe was on the other foot. The rate this dispute is going everyone at BA will soon be able to thank Unite and the Heathrow cabin crew for nuking their jobs. I have always had a soft spot for BA and in the past have used them in preference to others (for a truly awful flying experience try United). However, I can't trust them anymore that a booking I make will be honoured so I will avoid them - at least until the dispute is over. The whole issue though does bring together, quite nicely, most of the reasons why some people hate unions and others hate capitalist executives.
I believe BA has agreed to the original deal but is refusing to reinstate the non-contract perks which those on strike lost. So they're now going on strike over something they were never technically entitled to anyway, which is only going to end in tears for everyone.
you seem to fail to realise that the Union bod has the full backing of the membership in this matterand is representing their views. He is a figure head for their bad feeling. Walsh seems spectacularily inept How do you turn trolly dollies into the equivalent of 1970's dockers or car workers with similiar levels of hatred and industrial action? Clearly BA has badly managed what they were wishing to achieve in terms of a restructure. They clearly have pi55ed off almost all their employees ...whatever your view you cant do that and be a good manager. I supect the company will fold or Walsh will be pushed aside to do a deal.
did come across as petty, small minded and unlikely to help resolve the situation.
So was the original request by the staff.
He is a figure head for their bad feeling.
Curious, I know BA staff members (cabin crew) who disagree wholely with it and seem to be confused as to exactly who was voting for the action (original).
They clearly have pi55ed off almost all their employees ...
I have friends who are pilots, ground crew, and back-office, and to a man they support Walsh against their colleagues in cabin crew on this point. They've all accepted their share of the restructuring and see this as a part of the workforce risking all of their livelihoods based on a failure to realise how cushy their pay and perks have been for years.
My flights next week have been affected yet I'm doing all i can to rebook onto BA flights that will run so i can support them through this.
you seem to fail to realise that the Union bod has the full backing of the membership
...hence the number of cabin crew union members that provided their full backing by working through the last strike (and will do so through this one also)...
If you look at the figures only around 60% of union members actually voted for strike action at the second ballot. Still a majority, but hardly 'full backing'. And BASSA/Unite don't represent all cabin crew.
mrmichaelwright - Member
no flights means no conference delegates
zaskar - Member
Well I won't be using BA in a hurry
Onzadog - Member
Booked with someone else because of all this so they've done the damage.
Does anything else need to be said?
Does anything else need to be said?
I took two flights with BA during the last strike and they sorted me out for both of them?
I've got a booking on BA next week, they've kept me fully informed and, with one small adjustment, I'm confident I'll still be flying with them?
I never realised how well connected the STW massif was with BA perhaps you should launch a court case to appeal the ballot. I am sure your methodology will stand up to a legal challenge as fair and robust.
If you look at the figures only around 60% of union members actually voted for strike action at the second ballot
What so more than voted for the current coalition givernment.... i cannot believe they try and claim that is legitimate or fair.why did the courts uphold it?
The cabin crew - starting salry a disgusting 11k- agreed to take cuts similair to the other groups. Managemenbt wanted 1700 jobs gone, two year wage freeze and to recruit new staff on totally different terms and conditions. unites savings totalled 140 million and management are refusing to negotiate.
they have history of this sort of thing
[url][url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7286904.stm ]pilots threaten strike over two tier workforce[/url]
[url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8532090.stm ]pilots union takes BA to court[/url]
Yes it is just the militant trolly dollies and BA are just a great employer sorry.
Junkyard - it seems you've been reading socialist worker propaganda. The reality is that on top of the normal basic wages they get plenty of extra allowances that make the starting wage far higher, the only way you get the really low end money is if you flatly refuse to do anything other than the very minimum possible. I went to school with and still am good mates with a chap who has been in it since he left uni and he's currently better paid than I am by following the basic promotion options open to him.
Certainly swallowed something...
Yes, 60% is more than voted for the current coalition government. And it's more than half; that was why I said it's [i]still a majority[/i]. However, it's not the "full backing" of the union members as you were claiming. And nor is it necessarily a majority of BA cabin crew as a whole (I've no idea how many are not Unite/BASSA members).
starting salry a disgusting 11k
My next door neighbour (BA cabin crew) earns £11K but in reality it's more like £29K. She isn't striking. Some senior cabin crew earn ~£60K.
Virgin staff get £14K, that's it.
If BA go down, they'll all be working for a fraction of their current salary for a different airline. Mainly because of 2 egomaniacs.
Typical of the previous discussion we had on this.
Starting salary £11K? Do you want to advise the nice people what the average salary is for a member of cabin crew?
I have friends who are pilots, ground crew, and back-office, and to a man they support Walsh against their colleagues in cabin crew on this point.
"Divide and conquer".
Virgin staff get £14K, that's it.
They should organise.
Organise what?
That's the pay. If it's not enough, they will have to do what everyone else on the planet has to and find another job.
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
A failry conclusive vote for strike that even the most right wing of you on here will have to admit is a fairly powerful mandate for strike action.
Again having won the appeal they could have gone instantly on strike but have asked management to meet them and negotiate..... hardly unreasonable under the circumstances or overly militant.
Data from the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) shows for the first time how much higher BA’s wage costs are than its rivals. The average salary for BA’s 14,000 cabin crew, including bonuses and allowances, is £29,900, compared with £14,400 at Virgin Atlantic and £20,200 at easyJet. BA’s pilots earn an average of £107,600, compared with £89,500 at Virgin and £71,400 at easyJet.
BA is a premium airline with premium prices rather than a budget airline with their business model and prices. If you go with BA you dont expect Easy jet style treatment or conditions do you? If the you want the best I assume you have to pay the best prices like in any market? I mean premier league football players get more than Divison 2 players as they are better. Is the market wrong all of a sudden? I assume the Hilton Hotel chain say its staff on average more then Premier Inn for s similiar reason. I get so confused is the market right or not?
Are you saying that virgin atlantic are more akin to easyjet than BA? Their prices are certainly more like BAs.
Can't you just look at the evidence and admit that they are on a good thing? They are and they know they are. Even the most left wing could see that.
BA is a premium airline with premium prices rather than a budget airline with their business model and prices. If you go with BA you dont expect Easy jet style treatment or conditions do you?
So, what, you expect easyJet pilots to work to low cost standards too?
To use the analogy: the trouble is that the public are happy in a recession to stay at Premier Inn rather than Hilton. The service is still good, the beds are clean, and it's a fraction of the price.
So, what, you expect easyJet pilots to work to low cost standards too
Apparently if they dont like it they can do what everyone else does and get another job.
Can't you just look at the evidence and admit that they are on a good thing? They are and they know they are. Even the most left wing could see that.
well they are better paid than other doing a similar job for other airlines...are you suggesting we rid our selves of the market and pay them all the same? Clearly BA think they have a point BUT the managemnet at BA have an issue and they wish to change the work conditions of employees. They have introduced this change so badly that the employees are on strike. I call that bad management whatever the wage structure was or whether it is justifiable or not. to just say you are paid too much take a pay cut or f@ck off is not a great way of handling change in an organisation. It tends to annoy your workforce and without their support you get this sort of thing. As it stands only BA are refusing to talk not the Union. I am sure you can accept that workers , like MPs tend to not vote for pay cuts even if they know the pay is very good. The issue now is how to resolve it and a refusal by managemnt to even talk seem unlikely to be succesful.
BA's premium service stopped quite a while ago to be honest... I (used to) fly with them twice a week for a few years - it's def went down hill in the past few years.
I've booked with them to go to whislter over the august bank holiday, and frankly i'm sh1tting bricks that it's not resolved by then. That said the staff are clearly taking the piss.
I am sure you can accept that workers , like MPs tend to not vote for pay cuts even if they know the pay is very good.
The pilots accepted it
Ground crew accepted it
Admin and backoffice staff accepted it
- all realising it was essential so that the airline could remain competitive in 'the market'
I don't actually blame the cabin crew. It's the idiots at the top of the Union that have convinced them that they can bring the airline down by withholding their labour, and now they're in too deep to back out. Why should BA back down now. They made offers on the proviso no strike action was called and then it was called anyway, so they withdrew the offer. And 70% or so of flights will go ahead (maybe more - let's see how many of the staff that voted for action will forego 4 weeks wages when it comes to it, and that doesn't count those that voted against or didn't vote - which let's face it in this context is a vote against striking).
The Union is supposed to support the interestes of its members and in this case they'd have been better to accept the offer as given instead of ****ing about as they have.
Has anyone else read the article which suggested Woodley is posturing on this one knowing they won't win as a prelude to other disputes coming later this year so in those cases - which have more merits that this one - he'll have created a 'reputation'??
They made offers on the proviso no strike action was called and then it was called anyway, so they withdrew the offer
As i said bad management exactly how to not handle a negotiation. They are now both backed in to a corner refusing to give well management wont even talk so what is there next move? The sacking of the union rep has really not helped either
Marc Meryon, a partner at the Bircham Dyson Bell law firm, who specialises in industrial law said the dismissal of Duncan Holley, branch secretary of the British Airways Stewards and Stewardesses Association, the Unite division that represents BA cabin crew, could inflame tensions in the dispute. "Sacking a union representative is about the worst thing that can happen," he said
unions represent members they do not manipulate them and could not to the degree here. There is clearly a ground swell of opinion behind it.
can you put up a link to show the offers for all staff please? My understanding is that the dispute centred around the number of staff working on the flight deck not the pay per se. Do we have less pilots now as well?
and in this case they'd[union] have been better to accept the offer as given instead of ****ing about as they have.
Unions dont accept offers or refuse them they make a recommendation but the members choose to reject it.
Has anyone else read the article which suggested Woodley is posturing on this one knowing they won't win as a prelude to other disputes coming later this year so in those cases - which have more merits that this one - he'll have created a 'reputation'??
It wasnt in a right wing or Murdooh owned paper was it by any chance?
go back to work, i dont give a shit as i got a pikey van , and im going away for 2 weeks to scotland init.
posting this from an internet kiosk in Vienna which i've just set up, flying home Sunday to fly to Athens on Monday to set up another exhibit. Mixture of Easy Jet Austrian Airlines and Olympic. All flights origanall y booked on BA. June UK to Rome to UK to US US to Rhodes. Would usually be BA but guessing I'll be booked on other airlines now.
"To call for 5 day strikes is an insane and stupid thing to do - and something that is only guaranteed to help break BA as a company."
If that's true then it's not insane and stupid at all- if the union genuinely can threaten to break the company they'd be stupid not to, and the company would be stupid not to respond.
BA's in a mess, cabin crew terms and conditions are a tiny part of it, on Walsh's watch they've pissed money away on terminal 5, been taken apart by the courts for amateur price fixing, and hopelessly mismanaged their fuel hedging, and that's cost massively more than they're seeking to save from these crew cuts. And all the while losing footfall and failing to respond to changes i the market. But apparently it's only the crew cuts that are going to "break the company".
If I was cynical, I'd say there's a little thought in Willie Walsh's head that says "Uh oh, I'm clearly an incompetent, if anyone pays any attention to what I've actually done they'll kill me. I'd better find a scapegoat".
They made offers on the proviso no strike action was called and then it was called anyway, so they withdrew the offerAs i said bad management exactly how to not handle a negotiation.
Why? If they'd caved in on this what next? 'Yes, we said we'd withdraw the offer but we won't really. In fact, hold us to ransom and we'll cave in every time'.
Re: the decision to take the offer or go on strike. There may be a ground swell of opinion but they are imho being badly advised, and as a consequence are being led to the wrong decisions. And the decision to go to 20 days of stoppages shocked many of the membership - that wasn't expected or wanted by most of them but they're now too scared of the union / more militant members to back out. Or are they - we'll see who turns up to work next week and the week after.
I don't have a link to the 'offers' for other staff - this is as told to me by one of their pilots and separately one of their backroom staff.
It wasnt in a right wing or Murdooh owned paper was it by any chance?
May have been, I can't locate it.
are you suggesting we rid our selves of the market and pay them all the same?
I have suggested no such thing. Only that even with the new offer, the BA crew are still considerably better off than those working for other airlines doing the same job. All of your other points, I happen to agree with. As to Northwinds post, the fact that BA have been so wasteful just reinforces the fact that cuts are needed.
jonv it is bad management as it is bullying take this or we will offer nothing and withdraw this....kind of confrontational dont you think? Yes there bluff has been called and now what do they do just refuse to negotiate and say we told you so? that is why it is bad management you negotiate change you cannot force it on people.
As for blaming the union are 80% of the members so easily led that they can be persuaded by false facts to strike?
Re the offers I cant find anything from a quick Google as to what each bit were offered I have heard it said but not seen the evidenc ehence sceptism but in honesty I dont know either way.
Only that even with the new offer, the BA crew are still considerably better off than those working for other airlines doing the same job
I suspect you are correct but you cannot expect people to vote for pay cuts even if there current wage is high compared to others as they still have contract of employment that managemen toffered and they signed. That is why management needed to negotiate very well and tread softly to get this through. If you are removing benefits from workers [ whether justified or not] you can be sure they will be resistant to this . Management have failed to this IMHO and the ultimatum means they cant really do anything now as they will look like they have backed down. Unfortunately neither can the Union/members
Organise what?
Organise labour, obviously. Virgin staff are ripping themselves off if they're only getting half of what BA gets and about 2/3 of what EasyJet pays.
fickin union membership shite - outdated antiquated rubbish - if you don't like your job look for another
I love all the unionistas out there. Whether people believe they are entitled to a better wage / conditions is pretty irrelevant in a market based economy. If BA could justify prices high enough to pay their staff over the odds because in some way the staff made the whole service that much better than any other airline then they would be entitled to the money. The reality is BA has just made a horrendous loss (and therefore either can not afford the higher wage bills or justify higher prices to cover their costs). Yep there no doubt is some management incompetance within BA, there is in most companies, much of it was probably evident in that they allowed their employees terms and conditions to get so out of kilter with the market in the first place.
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?
Nail and head. They still have about 90% of what they wanted and wont even negotiate what kind of strategy is that?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
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 - MemberJunkyard. 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/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 [i]full support[/i] 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
[b]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[/b]
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
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.
[i]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 [/i]
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 😀