BA win - Victory for common sense

malkie76

The high court disagrees.

Any employee is free to seek employment elsewhere if they are unhappy with working conditions.

will-in-estoril

malkie76 wrote: »

The high court disagrees.

Any employee is free to seek employment elsewhere if they are unhappy with working conditions.

What does the High Court disagree with?

The legal framework with which UNITE is working within was drawn up by the most right wing government of the 20th century.

We live in a democracy. The right to withdraw one's labour is an integral part of such a democracy, no matter how much it offends you and winds you up. Have a look at those countries where strikes are illegal and tell me that they are better places!!

I will repeat, as you obviously do not understand: this is primarily an industrial dispute, not a legal one. UNITE recognises that, BA recognises that, the law recognises that, which is why all parties are engaged in negotiations to find a settlement.

Sammy85_2

Whilst i agree that workers at BA have a right to fair pay and t&c's, do they not realise that their company is making a loss, and if BA folds they wont have a job to strike over?

malkie76

What does the High Court disagree with?

That changes to their working conditions would be illegal. The High Court ruled that BA were perfectly entitled to alter the CC's working conditions.The CC have two choices - accept the changes and move on, or seek alternative employment with better conditions.

We live in a democracy. The right to withdraw one's labour is an integral part of such a democracy, no matter how much it offends you and winds you up. Have a look at those countries where strikes are illegal and tell me that they are better places!!

Where did I say the right to withdraw labour was illegal ? Please highlight that post, or stop putting words into my mouth. Any staff member (except the military and police I believe), are perfectly entitled to leave their job post at any time if they feel their working conditions are not to their liking.Similarly, their management have the right to terminate any contract with them the moment they fail to show up for work.You are correct, we do live in a democracy, but that works both ways.It's a fact BA is in a mess and needs to save money, and reducing staffing costs gives immediate cost-savings.

dmg24

Sammy85 wrote: »

Whilst i agree that workers at BA have a right to fair pay and t&c's, do they not realise that their company is making a loss, and if BA folds they wont have a job to strike over?

Unfortunately such common sense is lost on Unite and their little vendetta against WW.

will-in-estoril

malkie76 wrote: »

That changes to their working conditions would be illegal. The High Court ruled that BA were perfectly entitled to alter the CC's working conditions.The CC have two choices - accept the changes and move on, or seek alternative employment with better conditions. Where did I say the right to withdraw labour was illegal ? Please highlight that post, or stop putting words into my mouth. Any staff member (except the military and police I believe), are perfectly entitled to leave their job post at any time if they feel their working conditions are not to their liking.Similarly, their management have the right to terminate any contract with them the moment they fail to show up for work.You are correct, we do live in a democracy, but that works both ways.It's a fact BA is in a mess and needs to save money, and reducing staffing costs gives immediate cost-savings.

Ergo, the High Court did not disagree with any comment I made. I have always maintained that this is an industrial dispute: I am not obsessed with referring to the High Court at almost every juncture. However, to put this point to bed the High Court has never referred to Unite as selfish, nor has it declared their action unlawful.

Turning to the other substantial points. There may be a wish that BA cabin crew has only two choices, but evidently they have a third: to withdraw their labour. Why omit mentioning this? Because it is inconvenient to the poster's way of thinking? Or was it just an oversight??? As I write BA has already partially conceded on some of the staff cuts. Would they have done so without the pressure brought to bear by the threat of a strike? I think probably not (although I am not privy to the ongoing negotiations.) (Aside: I would hate the business class service to have its staff cut.)

The idea that an employee can be summarily dismissed for not turning up on day one of a strike is plain wrong. The (tory) laws provide immunity for at least 12 weeks.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Dismissal/DG_10026692

The poster needs to come clean: does she or he support the right to strike in a democracy, with the rights that go with it? Or is the antipathy towards UNITE and the BA cabin crew more to do with an upcoming trip to the far east?

Mr_Lahey

will-in-estoril wrote: »

Ergo, the High Court did not disagree with any comment I made. I have always maintained that this is an industrial dispute: I am not obsessed with referring to the High Court at almost every juncture. However, to put this point to bed the High Court has never referred to Unite as selfish, nor has it declared their action unlawful.

Turning to the other substantial points. There may be a wish that BA cabin crew has only two choices, but evidently they have a third: to withdraw their labour. Why omit mentioning this? Because it is inconvenient to the poster's way of thinking? Or was it just an oversight??? As I write BA has already partially conceded on some of the staff cuts. Would they have done so without the pressure brought to bear by the threat of a strike? I think probably not (although I am not privy to the ongoing negotiations.) (Aside: I would hate the business class service to have its staff cut.)

The idea that an employee can be summarily dismissed for not turning up on day one of a strike is plain wrong. The (tory) laws provide immunity for at least 12 weeks.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/RedundancyAndLeavingYourJob/Dismissal/DG_10026692

The poster needs to come clean: does she or he support the right to strike in a democracy, with the rights that go with it? Or is the antipathy towards UNITE and the BA cabin crew more to do with an upcoming trip to the far east?

From what i can see on these boards you are alone with your views, also from what i can see in terms of public support you are a minority.

If you don't like your job then leave. It is that simple.

will-in-estoril

Mr_Lahey wrote: »

From what i can see on these boards you are alone with your views, also from what i can see in terms of public support you are a minority.

If you don't like your job then leave. It is that simple.

I do not work for BA or any other airline. I am not a member, official or employee of UNITE.

The issue of being a minority on this thread does not phase me in the slightest. The only time minority or majority actually matters in terms of this thread is the result of a ballot, where a majority voted in favour of taking industrial action.

The poster has exposed himself as a reactionary who does not understand or want to understand the complexity of industrial disputes. If staff do not like their lot they do not have behave like invertebrates. The 'like it or lump it' attitude has no place in our democratic society, nor is it enshrined into any of our laws.

malkie76

No, it's still two choices. Accept changed terms or find alternative employment.Indeed they can strike, but then what? It's still back to accepting changed terms or finding alternative employment. I suppose a potential third option is that nothing changes and the company folds - however ultimately that takes them back to the second option.

will-in-estoril

malkie76 wrote: »

No, it's still two choices. Accept changed terms or find alternative employment.Indeed they can strike, but then what? It's still back to accepting changed terms or finding alternative employment. I suppose a potential third option is that nothing changes and the company folds - however ultimately that takes them back to the second option.

I have no need to spell out the third option, as the ongoing negotiations, still ongoing, represent it. There is more to voting to go on strike than actually going on strike: the ballot result is a vital ingedient in how this dispute has been shaped and it will effect both parties' negotiating strength. In fact, Guardian reports already suggest that BA has moved somewhat.

This is a far cry from the simplistic and facile two choice argument. Just as the Mass is an example of a Greek tragedy, so complex industrial negotiations too at times are pure theatre, with protagonists playing out their roles on a stage with interested and disinterested parties looking on and joining in. The denouement is not yet known, so that those who crowed prematurely about a victory for BA when Act 1 Scene 1 had just ended may yet eat their words.

The Monte Estoril sunshine is calling me away...vou beber um copinho com os meus compatriotas: o 25 de Abril fez brilhar o sol para todos. A luta continua. Ate breve!