Poll: Do you support the BA Cabin Crew 12 day strike at Christmas?

[Dolph]

Hmm, you're heading down the path of personal attacks with:-

and

It's obviously impossible to have a reasoned and sensible discussion with you so I will politely bow out of this exchange - thank you for your contributions up until this point.

Apologies if you feel that way, however a guarantee that union members won't be sacked does amount to an approach of forcing people to join the union, and works against a meritocracy. Furthermore, it introduces the prospect of using expulsion from the union as a threat...

With regards to the other part, the idea that a company can avoid compulsory redundancies because it employs a lot of people, and the only reason it wouldn't be able to is bad management, is fantasyland thinking. It is entirely possible that it's huge workforce is the result of past bad management, for example, or previous agreements to avoid unnecessary redundancies (see GM and the job banks program for a classic example).

Sometimes compulsory redundancies are unavoidable, no matter what the company size or how much overall profit they are making. You may not like it, I certainly don't, but I can at least accept it. The real problems come when employees are hidden from commercial reality for an extended period, and when change finally comes, it's massive and problematic, and there is no chance whatsoever of redeployment at that point...

 

[RDM]

If you were given the option of moving into another role but you refused, then that's not compulsory redundancy - that's voluntary redundancy by proxy.

I said there were no other suitable roles. There was no offer made because no suitable role could be found. It was certainly compulsary redundancy. But then even those people (in a different role) that volunteered where made compulsary redundant (in affect they volunteered to be made CR). But that was all made clear in the full consultation (group and individual) and what the T&Cs would be etc.

If your company called it CR then they made a mistake and you've grounds for an industrial tribunal claim.

Forgive me if I believe the HSBC legal people and the independant legal advice we got over your forum post.

 

[kalvindeane]

no. end of

 

[Schizophonic]

it looks like my holiday is cancelled

Due to fly out on the 28th and BA has announced its dates.

The British Airways cabin crew union Unite has announced fresh strike dates in its long-running dispute with the airline.

Cabin crew will walk out for four separate five-day strikes in May and June.

The first strike will begin on 18 May, ending on 22 May, with the three further strikes beginning on 24 May, 30 May and 5 June.

Unite members rejected a fresh deal for cabin crew earlier this month.

Just to make it clear, the 2nd strike on the 24th will last 5 days?

 

[scorza]

it looks like my holiday is cancelled

Due to fly out on the 28th and BA has announced its dates.

You mean you don't have faith in Willie's strike breakers?

It might not be so bad, a lot can happen in Industrial Relations in a week, though I agree with this particular CEO it doesn't seem that he cares one iota for his customers

 

[Cosimo]

Just to make it clear, the 2nd strike on the 24th will last 5 days?

That is what Unite have said:

http://www.unitetheunion.org//news__events/latest_news/cabin_crew_announce_further_ba.aspx

Nothing yet from BA:

http://www.britishairways.com/travel/strike-ballot/public/en_gb

 

[Schizophonic]

You mean you don't have faith in Willie's strike breakers?

It might not be so bad, a lot can happen in Industrial Relations in a week, though I agree with this particular CEO it doesn't seem that he cares one iota for his customers

Judging from the last strike, no I dont have any faith.

Can you clarify to me that from the strikes my holiday isn't going to happen? The strike beginning on the 24th will last for 5 days?

 

[Schizophonic]

That is what Unite have said:

http://www.unitetheunion.org//news__events/latest_news/cabin_crew_announce_further_ba.aspx

Nothing yet from BA:

http://www.britishairways.com/travel/strike-ballot/public/en_gb

B******

 

[zetec452]

Not good news for BA at all.

I wonder how many people are avoiding traveling with BA with these strikes looming?

 

[Smit]

Not good news for BA at all.

I wonder how many people are avoiding traveling with BA with these strikes looming?

Not good for their striking employees either, they are on the fast track to being unemployed once BA folds

 

[Dolph]

You mean you don't have faith in Willie's strike breakers?

It might not be so bad, a lot can happen in Industrial Relations in a week, though I agree with this particular CEO it doesn't seem that he cares one iota for his customers

Whereas Unite is showing just how much they care about the customers?

It's reaching the point where sacking everyone on strike and employing afresh is looking like a good option.

 

[scorza]

Whereas Unite is showing just how much they care about the customers?

It's reaching the point where sacking everyone on strike and employing afresh is looking like a good option.

Unite's customers aren't the passengers, they are the staff, and the staff's customer is BA. Essentially BA have been mistreating their suppliers of labour who are now taking appropriate action.

BA can't operate without its suppliers, but go ahead and see how many people would want to work for such a nasty company on crap wages.

 

[Dolph]

Unite's customers aren't the passengers, they are the staff, and the staff's customer is BA. Essentially BA have been mistreating their suppliers of labour who are now taking appropriate action.

Sounds like a further reason why enforced union recognition and negotiation is wrong

BA can't operate without its suppliers, but go ahead and see how many people would want to work for such a nasty company on crap wages.

BA could cut their wages by 40% and still be among the better paid employers in the industry.

What makes you think that only Unite/Bassa members could be good cabin crew?

 

[stockhausen]

I heard an interesting comment over the weekend from a lawyer specialising in employment law that there is a belief that BA will sack all of their cabin crew, rehire them on new contracts and fight it out in the courts.

 

[Dolph]

I heard an interesting comment over the weekend from a lawyer specialising in employment law that there is a belief that BA will sack all of their cabin crew, rehire them on new contracts and fight it out in the courts.

Well they've already got the court victory for such an action, as the reason for the strike was deemed not a change to the terms and conditions of existing staff. As such dismissal due to strike action (assuming they dismiss everyone involved) is likely to be legal.

The irony of such an approach (and it wouldn't surprise me if they did go for it at the rate it's going) is that the existing cabin crew would be much worse off than they are now, because BA have been doing everything they can to protect existing staff's benefits...

 

[scorza]

Sounds like a further reason why enforced union recognition and negotiation is wrong

Equalising the power differential between employer and employee isn't wrong, and imo is an overwhelming positive initiative. People perform better when the feel engaged with the company and not alienated. Of course, that sometimes requires management compromises which is against Anglo-Saxon business theory.

BA could cut their wages by 40% and still be among the better paid employers in the industry.

What makes you think that only Unite/Bassa members could be good cabin crew?

I don't claim that they are. Yet the fact remains that there is something rotten at the heart of this dispute, which is causing BA to suffer greatly. BA should be trying to treat the affected area by engaging to staff and listening to them, not cutting off his nose to spite his face. Who is BA run for the benefit of? Its shareholders or Willie Walsh's ego?

 

[Dolph]

Equalising the power differential between employer and employee isn't wrong, and imo is an overwhelming positive initiative. People perform better when the feel engaged with the company and not alienated. Of course, that sometimes requires management compromises which is against Anglo-Saxon business theory.

Of course, but that doesn't require external union recognition or indeed the right to strike over nothing.

I don't claim that they are. Yet the fact remains that there is something rotten at the heart of this dispute, which is causing BA to suffer greatly. BA should be trying to treat the affected area by engaging to staff and listening to them, not cutting off his nose to spite his face. Who is BA run for the benefit of? Its shareholders or Willie Walsh's ego?

The shareholders support Walsh, because they are mostly in it for the long haul and know these future changes have to be made.

What change in terms and conditions is being pushed onto existing employees that justifies the strike?

 

[stockhausen]

... The irony of such an approach (and it wouldn't surprise me if they did go for it at the rate it's going) is that the existing cabin crew would be much worse off than they are now ...

Indeed, on the other hand, they may feel that they are going to be shafted if they do nothing and don't want to give up without a fight

... BA have been doing everything they can to protect existing staff's benefits...

Now that IS absolute rubbish


My conversation was interesting; I was on a table at a social occasion with a group of people whom I didn't know, although most of them did know one another. At one point, I was left at the table with a solicitor specialising in employment law, not having met her before and not wanting to start a conversation based on religion, politics or sex I asked her what she thought of the BA cabin crew. I had anticipated that she would be critical of them but whilst she wasn't exactly sympathetic, she was definitely critical of BA.

What she said was that BA are introducing new contracts of employment; BA run a number of "fleets"; each fleet has different contracts of employment. If someone wants to move from the Domestic to the Atlantic fleet for example, they would be expected to sign a significantly worse contract. She considered this to be deliberately dishonest and divisive on the part of BA who she was convinced want to "discourage" their cabin crew from being in any union. She felt that BA would get a whole lot further in the negotiations if Willy Walsh wasn't involved.

 

[Dolph]

Indeed, on the other hand, they may feel that they are going to be shafted if they do nothing and don't want to give up without a fightNow that IS absolute rubbish


My conversation was interesting; I was on a table at a social occasion with a group of people whom I didn't know, although most of them did know one another. At one point, I was left at the table with a solicitor specialising in employment law, not having met her before and not wanting to start a conversation based on religion, politics or sex I asked her what she thought of the BA cabin crew. I had anticipated that she would be critical of them but whilst she wasn't exactly sympathetic, she was definitely critical of BA.

What she said was that BA are introducing new contracts of employment; BA run a number of "fleets"; each fleet has different contracts of employment. If someone wants to move from the Domestic to the Atlantic fleet for example, they would be expected to sign a significantly worse contract. She considered this to be deliberately dishonest and divisive on the part of BA who she was convinced want to "discourage" their cabin crew from being in any union. She felt that BA would get a whole lot further in the negotiations if Willy Walsh wasn't involved.

That already happens to anyone not on the heathrow crew, beacuse heathrow crew are dramatically overpaid and over-rewarded

As for breaking the union, I do believe that is part of what BA are trying to do, with the support of their shareholders. Equally, the union are trying to break BA.

 

[Youstolemyname]

The cabin crew should count themselves lucky they have a job and get on with it.