[Hippocampus]

According to an update WW gave to the City a few months ago, over 90% of non union members had accepted the offer. That number may be different since more members have resigned. Though, soundings are that many crew are now benefiting from payrises and opportunities to move fleets/go part time.

Instead of more finger pointing and blaming others, it would be useful to know what BASSA is actually doing to settle this dispute.

[Hippocampus]

Separately. IAG’s all important premium traffic was up 8.2% year on year in February so this puts paid to any suggestion that passengers are avoiding BA en masse because of the threat of strikes.

[Tete_de_cuvee]

The likelihood of a strike has just increased.

BA apologists have blamed BASSA when BA has been able to exploit legal loopholes to overide a significant majority vote. BA have chosen to ignore the strong mandate of its front line and instead of negotiating to address the underlying cause of angst has resorted to legal ploys and PR.

Instead of tackling the real issue, BA’s preferred option of using the law now appears to be found wanting. Hopefully BA will now save the company millions in flawed legal advisors and negotiate pragmatically

http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=143021&int1stParentNodeID=89732

Summary of judgement extract ….
There has been a series of cases over the last few years where the Courts have interpreted the industrial action legislation in ever more restrictive ways against trade unions. This judgment should put a halt to that trend. The union must pass on the information that it has about members in its notices, but that is all. It shouldn’t be tripped up by inadvertent errors in complying with the extremely complex balloting requirements.

[Hippocampus]

Few points:

1. BA obtained an injunction against the jaw droppingly crass and ill judged “Twelve strikes of Christmas” which completely destroyed any sympathy/benefit of the doubt towards crew because Lizanne Malone gave incorrect advice to union members on how they should participate in the ballot. This was not an “inadvertent error”. It was a gross mistake and Unite chose to ignore this, even though it has been made aware of it by BA before it called the strike.

2. BA did not seek an injunction against the last strike ballot. If Unite was so confident of its position, why did it choose to withdraw the ballot? Why didn’t let BA seek an injunction and test the issue before the courts?

3. BA HAS negotiated. It shook hands on a deal with Unite and Unite (not for the first time) reneged on a deal.

4. Stop looking to BA for answers and a solution to this. What has Unite offered? Nothing, apart from an ever increasing list of unreasonable demands (five ballot paper items have now become ten…).

5. The issue of whether the next ballot is a continuation of the previous strike (and therefore the 12 week protection period has expired) is not a small technicality. It is a fundamental issue surrounding a clear provision in the law and it has never been tested before the courts.

6. Again. Stop the blaming and looking to others for a solution to this.

[Tete_de_cuvee]

BA has chosen to ignore the strike mandate repeatedly, every vote has been overwhelming by any measure with over 75% in favour of a strike, yet BA has sought to circumvent this mandate given by its key front line.

Would the outcome of any of the votes have been materially impacted by the exploited technicalities – NO.

Why if the Walsh-Woodley talks provided an acceptable offer was the subsequent vote over 78% in favour of striking. Clearly it was not acceptable to continue to victimise strikers etc.

For PR purposes BA claims to have negotiated yet the vast majority of the angst would cost BA financially nothing to resolve. BA has been totally intransigent.

The BA offer of pay inceases is purely for PR and is a sop – the dispute has never been about pay.

BA initiated the dispute by breaking agreements. Since then they have taken an intransigent stance with continued use of the stick, intimidation, victimisation and bullying.

Both sides agreeing to binding ACAS arbitration on all items is the way forward. BA has thus far not agreed to this.

http://www.thecommentfactory.com/willie-walsh-is-trying-to-bust-the-union-3013/

[pixelmeister]

‘BA has chosen to ignore the strike mandate repeatedly, every vote has been overwhelming by any measure with over 75% in favour of a strike, yet BA has sought to circumvent this mandate given by its key front line.’

Um no. In fact even Unite can’t do the sums on this accurately. According to the last ballot figures, only 71% of those who voted supported industrial action. However, if you look at the figures for the total number balloted, only 56% were in favour of strike action.

‘Would the outcome of any of the votes have been materially impacted by the exploited technicalities – NO.’

Depends on whether you consider actively encouraging people who are no longer members of the union to vote. A polite way of describing that would be gerrymandering. A more appropriate one would be that this was fraudulent.

‘Why if the Walsh-Woodley talks provided an acceptable offer was the subsequent vote over 78% in favour of striking. Clearly it was not acceptable to continue to victimise strikers etc.’

See the above coment about the true figures – in reality just over half the membership voted for strike action. Oh but there was concern about people receiving more than one ballot paper and there is a difference of over 200 between the number balloted in December 2010 and the number balloted in March 2011. I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

‘For PR purposes BA claims to have negotiated yet the vast majority of the angst would cost BA financially nothing to resolve. BA has been totally intransigent.

The BA offer of pay inceases is purely for PR and is a sop – the dispute has never been about pay.

BA initiated the dispute by breaking agreements. Since then they have taken an intransigent stance with continued use of the stick, intimidation, victimisation and bullying.’

Um … NO. BASSA/Unite/CC89 have put no proposition on the table. All we have ever heard in this dispute is about a series of demands that the union side want in order to then start negotiations. BA management seem to be the only group that have put forward any kind of deals. If you know differently please enlighten the rest of us with what the union side have proposed as a deal toend this dispute – note I say end.

‘Both sides agreeing to binding ACAS arbitration on all items is the way forward. BA has thus far not agreed to this.’

Erm ,,,, did you read the offer put forward by BA. I think you’ll find that arbitration by ACAS was offered. The union has claimed that the deal was unacceptable because it also had a clause about dropping any legal action. This didn’t sit well with those who were sacked. Incidentally, I hear in the grapevine that Mr Holley lost his tribunal case. Full judgement due next week. So BA cabin crew are being whipped up by an ex-employee who clearly has an axe to grind.

[Tete_de_cuvee]

With the ability to obtain an injunction to nullify the current Cabin Crew ballot severly reduced

http://www.rmt.org.uk/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=143021&int1stParentNodeID=89732

and Spainish airport workers looking to strike for huge chunks of April

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1364227/Brit-tourists-face-holiday-hell-Spains-airport-workers-threaten-devastating-walkouts.html

WW and IAG are facing an early summer of discontent

[pixelmeister]

The Spanish airport workers strike is going to adversely affect Iberia. It will also impact the LoCos who rely on the bucket and spade brigade for the Easter turnover, so expect to see the likes of Easyjet and Ryanair getting very hot under the collar.

The recent ruling in the courts about the margins of error in ballots for strike action will not substantially affect the current cabin crew ballot as one assumes that this time around, Unite have done their homework and sorted out the membership records such that there could not be any challenge on the number of ballot papers issued. Of course, if it were possible to establish that some members had recieved multiple papers, that might be a somewhat different matter.

I doubt that BA are that concerned about the ballot result. It is pretty much a foregone conclusion that the majority of those voting will support industrial action. The determining factor will be just how many they number and of that figure, how many will actually take up any call for industrial action. I would suggest that given the last ballot, the actual number of supporters will be less than 5,000.

Of course, Unite still have to dig themselves out of the mess caused by linking this ballot to previous disputes. They have been talking a lot about wierd and wondrous industrial action of late, so I suspect that means they know that striking is not on the cards. Far more worrying to the union is the threat of being sued for BA’s losses last year – I believe that a case is due to come to court very soon on this. Not only that, the union knows that any industrial action by BA staff that is not immediately repudiated by the union, leaves the union open to being sued because of the unprotected nature of such action.

Finally, according to Unite a substantial proportion of the branch executive have been sacked by BA. It will be interesting to see how the union squares allowing people who are no longer employed by the company to continue to influence the direction this dispute takes. It will also be interesting to see how the membership react.

Much has been said about the damage to BA as a consequence of this dispute dragging on, but little has been made of the huge effect on Unite. Aside from the loss of members, it has shown the union to be pretty ineffectual in dealing with a large employer. The cockups by Unite in negotiations, sorting out ballots and then turning substantial votes in favour of strike action into real stoppages have a comic quality of their own. The union really does look ridiculous. This dent to their credibility will affect the way that other companies deal with them, as well as making workers question whether shelling out union dues is money well spent. BA, by contrast, seem to have a pretty slick setup that has been able to mobilise support from the workforce to substantially reduce the possible impact of strike action. In the PR battle Unite have been on the back foot from the outset.

[Tete_de_cuvee]

A glimmer of progress ?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-11/british-airways-pilots-approve-pay-deal-ceo-meets-cabin-crew-union-chief.html

[Binman62]

The glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel can often be an oncoming train. Caution should be excercised with all things trades union and BA.

[Tete_de_cuvee]

BA Walsh’s wombles shoot themselves in the foot again – targeting pregnant crew this time?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/8381713/British-Airways-accused-of-discriminating-against-pregnant-cabin-crew.html

[MartynSinclair]

a bit discriminatory – what about men during pregnancies – after all , it’s the men who have to stay to look after a wife and partner if they are unwell or need help, before and after pregnancy. Why does the world think only women bear the burden of childbirth. I hope Unite look after the men as well as the women during the 9 months and beyond……

[Hippocampus]

So, putting aside the usual feeble rhetoric, BA is requiring staff to actually turn up for work if they want to be paid. Shock, horror. Brutish Airways indeed.

Why do some Unite members have difficulty understanding that BA is a business and is not run for their own personal benefit?

[Author]

Posts