British Airways union Unite announces 20 more strike days

[Babooshka]

sack the lot of em....plenty more will take the jobs from smaller airlines.

 

Doubt it would be a successful venture to sack 12,000 crew.

 

Plus, the reason why, generally, people work for other airlines, is because they were rejected by BA in the first place. Nothing to do with money (hell, my starting salary was £7k when I joined!). May well be a different matter now, though, that BA are dropping their standards....in ALL areas. Used to be that BA were the most highly-monitored airline in the world with regards safety. Now, I'm not so sure.

 

And, again...British Airways employees do NOT get free annual holidays.

 

This has nothing to do with perks. The crew who are going on strike are doing so because of years of intimidation, and attempted imposition of numerous, radical changes to their working conditions (which you have not read about in the Media), which would make it impossible for the vast majority of people to continue to do the job that they have been doing for most of their lives. They have tried to negotiate, and have failed, despite having offered pretty much the exact sum of savings that the company demanded. It really has very little to do with money, as far as the company are concerned. Crew really don't care about perks. They care about their jobs. They care about the company...but they have had enough of the way that they have been treated by it. There are ways of going about things when making changes....and the way that a certain individual wishes to do it, is really not helping.

[robS35]

All the more reason to go on strike, because if he gets away with bullying people out of standing up for their rights by victimising union members then they might as well throw their union rights away because they would be meaningless.

 

Who is spitting the dummy out? Willie Walsh with his desperate attempts to break a union?

 

 

 

They received an 81% ballot in favour of strike action on something like a 70% turnout. Around 7,500 Cabin crew voting in favour. That is a pretty impressive result by any accounting.

 

They had how many days strike in April? was it 7 days. A strike that they received international support for and that caused BA considerable problems. This time they are going out for 20 days. Still well below the time BA can start handing out P45s under the anti-union legislation.

 

The strike is far from doomed. In fact the only people doomed will be the workers if they don't win this dispute. Doomed to work in a workplace where their views count for nothing, and where anyone expressing an opinion can be sacked like the 50 that already have been.

 

Im calling total BS on your figure of 7500 of crew voting yes to strike as ive now been told by a reliable source that the union membership of cabin crew is now below that figure. Cabin crew are dumping the union left right and center.

 

Theres only going to be one loser in this and thats the cabin crew when there are all out of a job because who in there right mind would even think about booking a flight with British Airways.

[sheffield_uk]

all i can say is i hope they can do without their jobs because they wont have them soon.

 

and when they go to new interviews saying they got sacked for striking they have no chance of getting employment...

 

suppose ryanair will have em

[Kingmaker2]

To be honest I don't care about costs to employers.

 

 

People are being executed in Iran for standing up for these basic principles! And you are worried about costs to the employer!

 

I have to say with respect Wildcat you are spouting out some naive statements regarding this issue.

Has it occurred to you that costs to the employer is one of the main reasons that BA management have to resort to these measures.

BA isn't a bank with endless money, it's a business that's trying to survive in testing times.

It's pretty natural for any employer to try dissuade people from striking because it's going to hurt the business and that in turn will hurt the worker in the long run.

And since you're so on the side of the worker, what about the other BA staff in other departments, the striking cabin crew workers are putting other BA workers jobs at risk.

 

As for people being executed in Iran tragic and barbaric as that is ,what's that got to do with BA?

[Wildcat]

Im calling total BS on your figure of 7500 of crew voting yes to strike as ive now been told by a reliable source that the union membership of cabin crew is now below that figure. Cabin crew are dumping the union left right and center.

 

Theres only going to be one loser in this and thats the cabin crew when there are all out of a job because who in there right mind would even think about booking a flight with British Airways.

 

Strange how the Times reports 97% membership in the BA Cabin Crew, the ongoing dispute cannot have affected membership that much, if anything it looks like it has grown.

 

If people are leaving Unite, then with such a high level of membership it won't matter much, especially not when the Union is quite clearly acting on behalf of the vast majority of members wishes.

 

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/transport/article7125089.ece

 

I think it is your reliable source that is giving out the BS.

 

As for flying with BA, you should take that up with Willie Walsh, it is his unreasonable actions that have led to this strike.

 

The BA Cabin crew should be applauded for sticking by their colleagues victimised by his actions.

 

If only more people stuck by the age old principles of "An injury to one is an injury to all", that have brought about our democracy and is being used all over the world to challenge the oppression of workers.

[Wildcat]

I have to say with respect Wildcat you are spouting out some naive statements regarding this issue.

Has it occurred to you that costs to the employer is one of the main reasons that BA management have to resort to these measures.

BA isn't a bank with endless money, it's a business that's trying to survive in testing times.

 

And those issues are largely settled through negotiation. They have been settled before only for them to be taken off the table again. The reason for the last 7 day stoppage.

 

It's pretty natural for any employer to try dissuade people from striking because it's going to hurt the business and that in turn will hurt the worker in the long run.

 

Pretty natural yes, but also repugnant and something no self respecting union would allow whether they were in Zimbabwe, France or the UK.

 

And since you're so on the side of the worker, what about the other BA staff in other departments, the striking cabin crew workers are putting other BA workers jobs at risk.

 

Striking Cabin crew aren't putting anyone at risk.

 

In fact not striking and roling over would be the only way anyone else was put at risk because the rights of workers to be consulted on changes to working practices would be devalued.

 

As for people being executed in Iran tragic and barbaric as that is ,what's that got to do with BA?

 

Everything. The issue now is a matter of principle. People all over the world depend upon their union rights to assert respect at work. Allowing people to be victimised for asserting a fundamental human right here, has a knock on effect undermining people's struggles all over the rest of the world.

 

In fact this is a clear example of where secondary action would be appropriate, because what is going on at BA affects us all. In the last strike thay already had workers all over the world going on strike in support of the BA cabin crew. BA have now upped the ante and if it wasn't for the anti union legislation in this country I would be arguing we should all be going out on strike and picketing BA offices because of the effect their decisions have on us. Instead should the strike go ahead I will be looking to make a donation to their strike fund and I would encourage others to do so to.

[Kingmaker2]

Striking Cabin crew aren't putting anyone at risk.

 

Hmm, now let me see:

 

Strikes cost millions of pounds in lost business, strikes costs future business, strikes loses customers to the competition, those customers may now prefer the competition, and now take their business to the competition and may never return to BA

Bottom line strikes mean more losses in revenue for BA that it needs to recoup, which could mean staff cuts in other departments of BA, or ultimately BA could collapse altogether meaning ALL BA staff losing their jobs.

 

Everything. The issue now is a matter of principle. People all over the world depend upon their union rights to assert respect at work. Allowing people to be victimised for asserting a fundamental human right here, has a knock on effect undermining people's struggles all over the rest of the world.

 

Your making it sound like BA cabin crew work in sweat shops or in rat infested factories, there are plenty of them around the world, perhaps the unions could invest their energies in helping these workers out a bit more.

 

In the last strike thay already had workers all over the world going on strike in support of the BA cabin crew.

 

In the last strike some airline workers unions in other countries pledged support, even though they probably knew very little detail about the actual dispute, although from news accounts not too many actually did strike in solidarity in the end.

[Wildcat]

Hmm, now let me see:

 

Strikes cost millions of pounds in lost business, strikes costs future business, strikes loses customers to the competition, those customers may now prefer the competition, and now take their business to the competition and may never return to BA

Bottom line strikes mean more losses in revenue for BA that it needs to recoup, which could mean staff cuts in other departments of BA, or ultimately BA could collapse altogether meaning ALL BA staff losing their jobs.

 

All of which is Willie Walsh's fault for putting conditions in the deal that no union would accept.

 

I am surprised they even put it to the vote to be honest, but I suppose with the scale and history of the issue, checking that members were still behind the dispute was worthwhile and good publicity especially considering all the negative and misleading briefings from BA.

 

Your making it sound like BA cabin crew work in sweat shops or in rat infested factories, there are plenty of them around the world, perhaps the unions could invest their energies in helping these workers out a bit more.

 

I can't see where I have made any comments that would suggest that

 

What we do know however is that for 50 of the cabin crew working in rat infested factories is on a par with or preferable to being sacked on trumped up charges.

 

In the last strike some airline workers unions in other countries pledged support, even though they probably knew very little detail about the actual dispute, although from news accounts not too many actually did strike in solidarity in the end.

 

I expect even more will be involved this time considering the publicity from last time and the way the dispute has run, with 50 people under threat of being sacked.

 

Nordic Unions have already given notice they will be taking solidarity action.

[brianthedog]

The 3 reasons given for rejecting the offer were (and I paraphrase):

 

1. the failure of BA to fully restore travel concessions from all crew who took industrial action. Something that is probably illegal, and if not something no self respecting union would agree to.

 

2. disciplinary actions against over 50 crew members. Again victimisation of strikers on trumped up charges, is not something unions take lightly. An injury to one is an injury to all being a fundamental principle in any union struggle.

 

3. lack of trust in BA's management to honour their agreements.

 

So nothing at all to do with reward packages being brought in to line with the rest of the industry!

 

What makes you think you know better when the recommendation to reject was made on such clear terms?

 

 

 

If you look at the reasons for the dispute you will see the couple of complaints about being unreasonable are the sole reasons given by Unite when recommending rejection of the offer.

 

 

 

So in reality you are making up your own dispute and reasons for it!

 

Why are you making up your own dispute? What do you have to gain from criticising workers standing up to a bullying management that have set conditions on an offer that includes the victimisation of staff that have participated in an industrial dispute, something that is ostensibly illegal and something no union or union member with an ounce of common sense would countenance agreeing to.

 

The only people bringing BA to its knees is Willie Walsh and his strategy of prolonging the dispute with ludicrous and insulting offers. If anyone is shareholder or traveller on British Airways they should be directing their complaints directly to Willie Walsh and calling for his resignation or to be sacked.

 

Why were they striking in the first place though? This is an ongoing dispute.

 

Walsh certainly doesn't need sacking or to resign - as an investor I'd rather someone who stands up to hatchet jobs, not a meek leader who simply bends over.

[Wildcat]

Why were they striking in the first place though? This is an ongoing dispute.

 

Walsh certainly doesn't need sacking or to resign - as an investor I'd rather someone who stands up to hatchet jobs, not a meek leader who simply bends over.

 

They were striking in the first place because negotiating with Willie Walsh had become an impossibility. What was on the table and that they were preparing to put to members got taken off the table again, something the union negotiators heard from reporters not BA management.

 

Willie Walsh has been doing all he can to prevent an agreement, whilst playing the victim. That is not tough negotiation it is either petulant stupidity or it is a deliberate attempt to break a union. Something he is finding BA cabin crews are more prepared to confront than those at Aer Lingus, who he scapegoated whilst detroying their company in his previous job.