BA Strike Action

[shanagarry]

Many people in industry get threatened with a lot worse than violence - loss of their livelihood and self esteem. Is teaching a proper job - I suppose it is in the hearts and minds of the right people.

It is rumoured we live in a free society - which means that you can change something if it doesn't suit you - that applies to us all - teachers as well. All we seem to hear these days is the constant griping of those who are not happy with their lot and want more money and if they don't get their way - they withdraw their labour and inconvenience the people who pay for them to be employed in the first place. In the main - this threat comes from the public sector where they/you have protected salaries and pensions (the size or amount doesn't matter) - they have a lot more than private sector workers.

BA isn't a public sector body now - but it was and old habits die hard. Time for the reality check.This also applies to those in the public sector who believe the private sector is there to 'fatten' them - by taxing the people who make the economy grow, out of existence. If Brown & Co believe that to be a long term strategy - communism beckons - then teachers will have to take what they're given.

As far as there being an education or schools system - I should hope so - I've paid enough for it - but if those that choose teaching as their way to make a living don't like it - get out - you are in it for the wrong reason - money. It's supposedly a vocation.

[laserblazer]

I think the difference is that if an employee threatens a manager with violence the chance are he will be an ex-employee. In school, a teacher can be physically assaulted and have to teach the same pupil next day. This is compounded by the worry about using excessive force when defending yourself.

[shanagarry]

laserblazer - Have a very Happy Christmas

[SAM SPARKLE]

A strike by British Airways cabin crew planned for Christmas has been declared illegal in a High Court ruling.

The court agreed with BA that the cabin crew's union, Unite, had not correctly balloted its members on the strike action.

BA complained that staff in the process of leaving the company had been balloted, breaching industrial relations law.

[shanagarry]

Well that's good news for a lot of people - excellent

[SAM SPARKLE]

None more so than Willie Walsh

[e-richard]

All that means is that the strike will not go ahead on the dates planned.

It does not mean that the dispute has been settled, NOR does it mean that Unite cannot call another ballot for a strike at a later time.

Lets hope it gives time for discussion.

[shanagarry]

What it means is the trades union movement is not beyond the law - despite thinking they make the law.

Maggie Thatcher took them down - Blair, Brown & Co allowed them to regroup - it's now time for them to be put firmly in their place - hopefully this is the first nail in their collective coffin(s)

[Bristle Si]

What it means is the trades union movement is not beyond the law - despite thinking they make the law.

Maggie Thatcher took them down - Blair, Brown & Co allowed them to regroup - it's now time for them to be put firmly in their place - hopefully this is the first nail in their collective coffin(s)

Absolutely agree, and i've been a union member for 29 years!

Some of the disputes in recent months (incl.postal workers) do seem to be a throwback to the 70s. The current BA dispute is beyond my comprehension. I work for one of the world's largest financial institutions and we've had a number of changes to our terms and conditions over the last few years. Some of the existing working practices of BA staff are firmly entrenched in the old state industries of the pre-Thatcher years. BA is typical of some of those industries that were privatised back then, but employees still retain some of the old 'perks'!

If i was a Virgin exec i'd think twice about re-employing ex-BA staff.

[shanagarry]

Bristle Si - no argument here. Let's hope the rest of the Trades Union lowlife get their come-uppance in the very near future.

[cereza]

The big problem is that Labour has no money and they have lost their more recent backers so that they are totally reliant on the unions for funding which means that the unions think that they can call the shots. Its all so reminiscent of the 70s !

[maccasa]

Exactly Cereza - thats why there should be no private funding of political parties - they should be allowed a "small" amount by public donation 2-3m?? and the rest from the treasury - it should be a sum based on the number of seats in the house, the seats you are contesting and the voting numbers - and no stupid parties being allowed - raving looneys for one!

[shanagarry]

macassa - we wouldn't have any on that basis - especially if you were to add honesty and integrity into the mix

[Bruce Wallis]

OK....an alternative view........

Forget this overwhelming desire to unionbash and consider this....

Most members of modern trades union, are reasonably intelligent and want their employers to flourish for the obvious reason that it protects their own interest in the long term.
Likewise most union officers are not rabid Scargilite monsters wishing to bring down the system and introduce some socialist valhalla, they are there to represent the interests of their membership.

Instead of evoking the tired old Thatcherite predudices, look at the fact that the airline people are not the downtrodden working class masses, but white coller staff, many of whom are probably middle class in their outlook.

So instead ask yourself why do people like this vote over 90% (even removing the ineligble vote), to take this drastic action??

There is a systemic industrial/HR problem with BA. That is the real issue here.

The union and its members know that change and improvement is necessary, however painful. It's the way that the employer is trying to bludgeon that change in that is the problem.

An enlightened judge would have ordered a re-count after eliminating the ineligible votes. That would have been the correct and just thing. But no, the high handed establishment, union bashing view prevailled.

There will be a 2nd ballot, and no doubt, then, a properly, legally constituted strike will take place.

In the face of such an overwhelming statement from its workforce, why is BA refusing to see that some compromise solution is needed.

Instead they crow over some suspect legal technicality.

It is good that Christmas travel is protected. Even the union member agree with that.

For BA....the problem has not gone away. They must face it, and work with their workforce for a solution.

[shanagarry]

Bruce - we will have to agree to disagree.

Unions and all they stood for in the dark ages is a long way removed from the business breaking dinosaurs that prowl industry today. Unlike the dinosaur they are still around and preventing progress. Your assessment of BA is spot on, in much the same way as Royal Mail and the over-sized Public Sector is - the sooner these people realise that their selfish actions are bringing the country to its knees - the better. The problem being - they do not - and the current financial situation is as much a factor of their eagerness to put their needs ahead of those who feed them as it is the banks.

The world is changing around us and for unions to demand that a business that is in a 'black-hole' to the tune of £3.7Bn should continue to pay outlandish salaries to non productive people is nothing short of preposterous.

Whether the judge was right or wrong is irrelevant - the Union illegally used the votes of people who were no longer employees of BA vote on taking disruptive action is fundamentally dishonest and was treated accordingly - it most definitely is not a technicality - they did it deliberately.

Should they strike in the new year is somewhat questionable. The election is just around the corner and Brown will be doing all he can to push their industrial inaction back to the Summer - just as the Tories get into office and then lambaste them for it.

Funny old world isn't it