We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
BA Strike back on
Comments
-
vivatifosi wrote: »Sorry speedbird. Should have made myself clearer. I meant pyrrhic victory for BASSA rather than BA.
In that case I agree with you! - however I think the appeal should've been won. The right for people to strike is important.0 -
speedbird1973 wrote: »The right for people to strike is important.
I absolutely agree. I don't agree with the whole technicality thing, but I'm still surprised that Unite didn't get it right first time when it was so totally obvious that what they put out was going to be gone through with a fine toothed comb. Ultimately, as you have already pointed out, it has cost them time that they don't have.Please stay safe in the sun and learn the A-E of melanoma: A = asymmetry, B = irregular borders, C= different colours, D= diameter, larger than 6mm, E = evolving, is your mole changing? Most moles are not cancerous, any doubts, please check next time you visit your GP.
0 -
As I posted on the other BA thread :-
BA already has a court ruling that the changes they want to impose on the workers are fair and reasonable.
That was an important judgement becuase BA (indeed, any employer) can introduce new contract changes by giving 90 days notice (note, that is not a dismissal, but a contract variation) and if the employee doesn't agree they could quit and then seek constructive dismissal claims against BA....but to win, the employee would have to prove the employer acted unfairly......BA have a ruling that says they were fair so the employment tribunal hasn't a leg to stand on.
So BA have got the green light on the contract changes being fair and they continue to negotiate with the union and workers - but BA can now freely change the contracts without legal retribution. BA don't want to sack 12,000 staff overnight, but they could phase those job cuts in whilst replacing with new staff on new (cheaper) contracts and the workers and Unite could do little about it.
I suspect Unite have now backed themselves into a corner from which they cannot escape from and all this legal challenging marlarky has just been designed to waste Unite's time whilst the 90 days consultation period clocks on by........Anger ruins joy, it steals the goodness of my mind. Forces me to say terrible things. Overcoming anger brings peace of mind, a mind without regret. If I overcome anger, I will be delightful and loved by everyone.0 -
I suspect Unite have now backed themselves into a corner from which they cannot escape from and all this legal challenging marlarky has just been designed to waste Unite's time whilst the 90 days consultation period clocks on by........
So you agree that the original court decision was a disgrace.'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
So you agree that the original court decision was a disgrace.
The "original" one back in December was absolutly spot on! How can you ballot people who are no longer working for a company or have agreed to leave it!!
Last Monday's ruling wasn't a DISGRACE at all. It was issued on the balance of convenience - Unite screwed up the ballot and BA rightly challenged it, the original judge basically passed it on to a higher court. With £100s of millions at stake Unite should get it right!!
BA can take this to the supreme court if they so choose. I don't disagree with the ruling, but the original one wasn't a disgrace at all.0 -
i fly on business regularly, using BA and Virgin. If BA back down on this travel perks issue, I will never fly BA again.
The cabin crew are scum and should be lucky they have a job. BA were perfectly right to take away the travel perks. In fact, they have backtracked already and reinstated it - just not at the same levels. That sickens me.
The first thing all the cabin crew that went on strike should get is all their non-contractual perks taken away - for good. the second thing they should get is the sack.
hateful money grabbing scumbags.
if they want to share in the massive profits BA makes (what was it, 336m loss?) then buy shares and get your dividend.
I HATE UNIONS. they shoudl ALL be smashed.0 -
speedbird1973 wrote: »
BA can take this to the supreme court if they so choose. I don't disagree with the ruling, but the original one wasn't a disgrace at all.
Are you Jasons AE'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
speedbird1973 wrote: »The "original" one back in December was absolutly spot on! How can you ballot people who are no longer working for a company or have agreed to leave it!!
Last Monday's ruling wasn't a DISGRACE at all. It was issued on the balance of convenience - Unite screwed up the ballot and BA rightly challenged it, the original judge basically passed it on to a higher court. With £100s of millions at stake Unite should get it right!!
BA can take this to the supreme court if they so choose. I don't disagree with the ruling, but the original one wasn't a disgrace at all.
The first decision was absurd. If you assumed every single person who BA said shouldn't have balloted voted 'yes', and removed them from the ballot, what you got was still a huge majority in favour of the strike.
So, by any measure, I do not understand how the first decision was sensible or proportionate.
As for a decision based on 'balance of convenience', please quote any part of the legislation that provides for such a test.
Frankly, the original decision was absurd, because the union had notified its members through notice boards and its website of the crucial information, and the number of votes (11) that were spoiled could not possibly have influenced the result when the majority in favour was over 90,000.“The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens0 -
The first decision was absurd. If you assumed every single person who BA said shouldn't have balloted voted 'yes', and removed them from the ballot, what you got was still a huge majority in favour of the strike.
So, by any measure, I do not understand how the first decision was sensible or proportionate.
As for a decision based on 'balance of convenience', please quote any part of the legislation that provides for such a test.
Frankly, the original decision was absurd, because the union had notified its members through notice boards and its website of the crucial information, and the number of votes (11) that were spoiled could not possibly have influenced the result when the majority in favour was over 90,000.
The problem with the December vote was that the idiotic BASSA rep (who get's 50k and hasn't flown for over a year) encouraged people who weren't eligable to vote to do so anyway - HOW UTTERLY STUPID IS IT POSSIBLE TO BE??? How can that be considered a fair ballot? The judge had no leeway on that decision.
Balance of convenience is the current judge's words not mine. The law you wish me to quote says quite clealry that the number of "yes", "no", "absain" and spoilt ballots should be clearly published. The last one wasn't. Common sense or not, BA were correct.
As I say, neither here nor there, BASSA will be gone in a few months and so will Unite if they don't cut the militants away. Worth pointing out in all of this that Unite have acted very well for other BA staff under it's "wing"0 -
speedbird1973 wrote: »The law you wish me to quote says quite clealry that the number of "yes", "no", "absain" and spoilt ballots should be clearly published. The last one wasn't. Common sense or not, BA were correct. "
That was not the finding of the appeal court judge on the matter. The information was published on the unions website.“The ideas of debtor and creditor as to what constitutes a good time never coincide.”
― P.G. Wodehouse, Love Among the Chickens0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards