<OT> British airways strikes / General Chatting / Forums

Forums

4hv.org :: Forums :: General Chatting

« Previous topic | Next topic »

<OT> British airways strikes

1 2 next

Move Thread

LAN_403

Conundrum

Mon Dec 14 2009, 10:07PM

Registered Member #96 Joined: Thu Feb 09 2006, 05:37PM
Location: CI, Earth
Posts: 4061

Hi all.

Grr. As if we HV'ers didn't have enough to worry about, BA's staff are striking.

Needless to say the effects on postal services and essential flights for students etc could be serious.

Is it too much to ask for whichever Govt who wins the General Elections to outlaw strikes for public sector workers?

Just my $0.02 worth.
-A

Henry H

Tue Dec 15 2009, 03:23AM

Registered Member #2298 Joined: Sat Aug 15 2009, 08:16PM
Location: ex UK, now Santa Cruz, CA
Posts: 35

By what definition are BA staff public-sector workers?

Bored Chemist

Tue Dec 15 2009, 06:59AM

Registered Member #193 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 07:04AM
Location: sheffield
Posts: 1022

Here's why they are going on strike
"Just over 12,500 cabin crew have been balloted following BA's imposition in November of new working arrangements, including the reduction of crew numbers on all flights, which cabin crew say hits passenger service, as well as their earnings and career prospects. Unite has been pressing BA to come to a negotiated solution, however the airline rejected this in favour of imposed changes."
( from the union, Unite's website)
So the management won't even talk to them until they threaten strike action. What else should they do?

Nicko

Tue Dec 15 2009, 07:54AM

Registered Member #1334 Joined: Tue Feb 19 2008, 04:37PM
Location: Nr. London, UK
Posts: 615

As awlays there are at least two sides to this - BA staff are also amongst the highest paid & have the best packages of all the major airlines - this is for historical reasons - thus they cannot compete with "recent" startups which have "more contemporary" contractual arrangements with staff.

To survive, BA management have to tough it out - the unions are living in the dark ages - there will be no BA left at this rate...

Bored Chemist

Tue Dec 15 2009, 07:24PM

Registered Member #193 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 07:04AM
Location: sheffield
Posts: 1022

It seems the union is prepared to talk. The management are not.
Who is living in the dark ages?
Unions have a lot more sense than to destroy jobs (though governments sometimes blame them for it) It isn't good for the members. On the other hand the threat of a strike does wonders for getting the management to actually face up to the fact that they can't do the job without the staff (the converse is debatable).
It's entirely possible that both the union and its members have no intention of striking- after all they don't get paid if they do, but they are using the threat to get the bosses to think about it.
Watch this space.

Nicko

Wed Dec 16 2009, 08:50PM

Registered Member #1334 Joined: Tue Feb 19 2008, 04:37PM
Location: Nr. London, UK
Posts: 615

From the BBC - "Unite's joint leader Derek Simpson admitted to GMTV that the 12-day duration of the planned strike was "probably over the top".

It is over the top, it's commercial suicide. Brinkmanship. But will gain little. The management have little choice but to tough it out - they have no money - what "concessions" they do make to allow Unite to save face will have been pre-thought-out and costed. However, in due course, the end result will be that quietly, Unite will have to concede or the airline will go under. Smoke & mirrors...

Bored Chemist

Thu Dec 17 2009, 06:55AM

Registered Member #193 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 07:04AM
Location: sheffield
Posts: 1022

"what "concessions" they do make to allow Unite to save face will have been pre-thought-out and costed. "
And now they will actually talk to their staff about them, which is a good thing.

"However, in due course, the end result will be that quietly, Unite will have to concede or the airline will go under. "
Both sides will concede things. It's called negotiation. It would have been better if the management had started it without needing to be threatened.
Don't forget the importance of the staff here; they can vote the union out, but they can't vote the managemnt out of office. The union can only do what the members tell it to. There was a ballot about the strike.

HV Enthusiast

Thu Dec 17 2009, 03:49PM

Registered Member #15 Joined: Thu Feb 02 2006, 01:11PM
Location:
Posts: 3068

wrote ...

The union can only do what the members tell it to.

Not quite. Depending on the union, policy can be flowed down (via intimidation) to its members in any way leadership sees fit. In fact, many unions still work in this fashion. I have lots of experience with unions (and have been in one for over 10 years now), and can tell you sometimes members don't have any say in what goes on at all.

Nicko

Fri Dec 18 2009, 07:25AM

Registered Member #1334 Joined: Tue Feb 19 2008, 04:37PM
Location: Nr. London, UK
Posts: 615

I'll be honest here - I really don't like BA as a company - I like it's staff, but not the company. I also confess to being mainly a Guardian Reader (UK readers will understand where that places my socio-political perspective).

A few years ago I used to do a LOT of business travel - in one year alone, I did 80+ pairs of flights round Europe and at one stage I was commuting weekly between London & Washington, and often with European or Far Eastern (HK,Singapore) flights thrown in as extras. During one episode I managed 4 countries in a day.

Of all the airlines I used to use regularly, BA were without doubt the worst from a passenger perspective, a view shared by many of my colleagues. For long haul, Virgin were rated the best, but, as a report in yesterday's Guardian showed, Virgin cabin staff are the lowest paid.

It's also probably not to clever to take the ballot at face value - it was improperly conducted - BA, as you will be aware, have contested its legality in court and yesterday the ballot was ruled illegal.

and

Neither side is squeaky clean in this. The situation is largely of BA's (historical) management's making, but the unions also can't be blinkered and intransigent - they were negotiating before the strike, and its the union who out of frustration called the 12 day strike over the Christmas period. The union's joint leader admits the strike call was "over the top".

Don't forget Willy Walsh was also a pilot and trade union representative - he once said that "A reasonable man gets nowhere in negotiations".

Disputes like this will always be ugly.

Bored Chemist

Fri Dec 18 2009, 12:37PM

Registered Member #193 Joined: Fri Feb 17 2006, 07:04AM
Location: sheffield
Posts: 1022

EastVoltResearch wrote ...

wrote ...

The union can only do what the members tell it to.

In the Uk it is illegal for a union to hold a strike unless they have held a sectret ballot and obtained a clear mandate to do so.
How do you intimidate people into voting the way you want them to in a secret ballot?

Even if they have held such a ballot the company can go to court and win an injuction preventing the strike on a legal technicallity even where the effect of the technical breach of the law could not have made a difference to the outcome of the vote.

Perhaps I should declare an interest here. I am a union rep. One of my jobs is to go to the annual conference and tell the central union body what the people I represent want them to do.
The union are constitutionally and legally bound to agree to any sugestions that I can get voted through (the vote is taken among the collection of repersentatives.)
That's a whole lot more democratic than the BA management.

1 2 next

Moderator(s): Chris Russell, Noelle, Alex, Tesladownunder, Dave Marshall, Dave Billington, Bjørn, Steve Conner, Wolfram, Kizmo, Mads Barnkob