BA Strike, what will it do to BA?

[medhead]

My brother has lived spent the last 10 years variously working/living in london and europe and his rule of thumb to gauge the value of salary is to just take the gross amount. i.e. 29000 quid in UK is the same as earning 29000 euro in germany is the same as earning $29000 in australia.

of course 29000 euro in spain might be better than in germany

 

[serfty]

What's the dispute About?

BBC News - Q&A: What's the dispute about?

What is at the heart of the dispute?

In November, BA reduced the number of cabin crew on long haul flights from 15 to 14 and introduced a two-year pay freeze from 2010.

...

The airline has also proposed new contracts for fresh recruits and newly-promoted staff. These include a single on-board management grade, no seniority, promotion on merit, and pay set at market rate plus 10%.

This would still see new recruits paid significantly less than current staff, however.

The plans for the changes were first presented to company workers and unanimously rejected at a mass meeting in July.

The union said those measures were brought in in November and argues it should have been consulted because the changes are contractual.

But BA disputes this and says it was not obliged to consult.

The union ... welcomed a decision that a full court hearing should examine the contractual issue. That hearing is scheduled to begin on 1 February.

Union members said they would "unwillingly" work the new schedule but would still ballot for a strike.

 

[docjames]

My brother has lived spent the last 10 years variously working/living in london and europe and his rule of thumb to gauge the value of salary is to just take the gross amount. i.e. 29000 quid in UK is the same as earning 29000 euro in germany is the same as earning $29000 in australia.

of course 29000 euro in spain might be better than in germany

That's the rule i usually use. Pay in local currency (EU/USD/STG etc)
That, and the big mac index (has that now been supplanted by the iPod index?)

 

[Mal]

STG 29k aint much if you live in london!

You can easily live in London on 29K GBP / year. Heck, I've been unemployed and living in London for 6 months and definitely have not spent even 1/2 of that. And that figure includes rent, groceries, entertainment etc.

 

[samh004]

well you might think it's a crock but explain why so many are taking sick leave, if they are happy.

besides 29000 quid ain't that much

Well, they should be happy if they’re getting paid double for the same work, while at the same time sometimes not even going into work! I know I’d be happy about that.

 

[codash1099]

BA are reported to have obtained an injunction against the strike, making it illegal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/dec/17/ba-christmas-strike-blocked-court

I wonder if that will stop it?

 

[medhead]

Well, they should be happy if they’re getting paid double for the same work,

Sorry to say this oft quoted comparison with virgin is totally irrelevant IMO. It smacks of anti-union propaganda.


In terms of living on 29k, i was in melbourne of six months on an annual salary of about 30k 10 years ago. It certainly isn't what i would call living. it was a fairly miserable time and yes i could pay for rent, transport and food but that was about it.

 

[samh004]

BA are reported to have obtained an injunction against the strike, making it illegal.

BA Christmas strike blocked by high court | Business | The Guardian

I wonder if that will stop it?

Looks that way, but it’s just going to make them more angry and they’ll try screw BA up even more with the next ballot I’m sure. I don’t think they actually want to negotiate, just to win or get their members fired!

Sorry to say this oft quoted comparison with virgin is totally irrelevant IMO. It smacks of anti-union propaganda.

In terms of living on 29k, i was in melbourne of six months on an annual salary of about 30k 10 years ago. It certainly isn't what i would call living. it was a fairly miserable time and yes i could pay for rent, transport and food but that was about it.

I don't think anyone would disagree that it's not a lot, however the job isn't meant to be one of the best paid jobs in the world. You're getting free air travel to fabulous destinations and free accommodation at those destinations.

I’m all for unions, they give rights to the workers, but what’s being done here is criminal, they’re disrupting more than just the airline, and they can do whatever they like without getting in trouble, per:

But there was some regret for passengers who had spent hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of pounds booking alternative flights.

Because the union does not have a duty of care towards passengers, they have no right to sue the union, said Mark Meryon, industrial relations partner at the law firm Bircham Dyson Bell. "The threat of a strike is not enough to trigger a liability," Meryon said. BA's ability to sue the union was also limited, he added.

That’s a completely different subject I know, but passengers should have the right to sue the union for strike action, as they’re hurting more than just BA. And BA should have the right too, to a certain extent.

It’s all going to be very bad in the coming months when the strike again and cripple BA, more out of vengeance for the injunction than for it’s members. It’ll happen.

 

[medhead]

I’m all for unions, they give rights to the workers, but what’s being done here is criminal, they’re disrupting more than just the airline, and they can do whatever they like without getting in trouble, per:

Not exactly, They didn't conduct a proper vote (as noted by a post earlier in the thread) and hence they can't have the strike, no matter how much they what to strike.

 

[samh004]

Not exactly, They didn't conduct a proper vote (as noted by a post earlier in the thread) and hence they can't have the strike, no matter how much they what to strike.

What I meant was, I understand strikes are allowed so workers have power over their employers when disputing things, but the fact that the union doesn’t have a duty of care to the public who buys products from the company isn’t right.

I suppose that’s another issue entirely.

 

[Dave Noble]

What I meant was, I understand strikes are allowed so workers have power over their employers when disputing things, but the fact that the union doesn’t have a duty of care to the public who buys products from the company isn’t right.

When you buy a ticket , you are entering into a contract with the airline to provide a service; you are not entering into a contract with the individuals who will provide the service. The staff has no realationship with the customer.

Strikes are generally a last resort when either a company will not realistically negotiate or when the 2 parties are unable to come to an agreement

The union members do have a duty of care when performing their services; they do not have any direct commitment to the companies customers; if the airline enters into a contract and is unable to meet its obligations, it is the airline's responsibility

Things can be different if the strike is unlawful

Companies can negotiate no-strike agreements with unions, but would normally have to make concessions ( such as agreeing that unresolved disputes go for binding arbitration with ACAS ) and BA could always try to negotiate that with the unions

Dave

 

[Mal]

Not exactly, They didn't conduct a proper vote (as noted by a post earlier in the thread) and hence they can't have the strike, no matter how much they what to strike.

Staff can still do certain things to frustrate BA, but both opens themselves up to being sacked, and the unions sued if BA can prove it was organised.

Union has said that they will not be appealing the decision, but instead re-balloting staff asap.

The unions have come out with some extremely weird statements ... statements that won't win them any friends with the judiciary. Here are some examples:

From Unite:

"Today’s judgment granting British Airways an injunction to deny you the right to take the industrial action you overwhelmingly balloted for is a disastrous day for democracy."

"we are shocked that the judge has made what is a clearly political ruling."

And from BASSA:

"As gutted as you. Shocked and suspicious that a judge can over turn a massive yes on a technicality. We were told we had to ballot all those who may be asked to participate in the ballot. On the day we chose to make the snapshot of the database (which we had to do by law to inform BA of numbers) there were still members who had not yet had their VR confirmed. Legal advice then said they had to get a ballot. 2 days after the ballot was sent BA gave confirmation (strange that - don't you think?) We were now in a Catch 22 scenario. To send out a generic public message telling them not to vote would have alerted BA that something was amiss."


Now, what apparently happened was that BASSA knew that staff who were not eligible to vote received voting papers. And a BASSA head, actually encouraged these people to vote even though they were not eligible to vote.

There is now finger pointing everywhere, except at themselves...

 

[davidj-bell]

Now, what apparently happened was that BASSA knew that staff who were not eligible to vote received voting papers. And a BASSA head, actually encouraged these people to vote even though they were not eligible to vote.

There is now finger pointing everywhere, except at themselves...

My understanding is that the judge granted the injunction based on 2 points:
1) that the ballot included staff who had accepted redundancy. While the union argued that this was a technical breach that had no materal impact on the outcome (800 votes wasn't going to sway the result), the judge stated that breaching the legal process to conduct a vote was not a technical breach. The judge also noted that in previous ballots, they union was able to exclude those that had accepted a redundancy payment, so the union was perfectly able to do so again
2) that the members voting were not told that it would be a 12 day strike over christmas, and so such a drastic action required the members to vote for.

My guess is that the union deliberatly included the workers accepting redundancy, and deliberatly made an outrageous strike claim, to force BA to the negotiation table, knowing that the courts would rule the strike illegal. That way, the union gets its headlines, upsets BA, gets willie to the table, but doesn't have to lose face by calling off the strike.

 

[medhead]

My guess is that the union deliberatly included the workers accepting redundancy, and deliberatly made an outrageous strike claim, to force BA to the negotiation table, knowing that the courts would rule the strike illegal. That way, the union gets its headlines, upsets BA, gets willie to the table, but doesn't have to lose face by calling off the strike.

If the union has been clever enough to plan all that I'm truely impressed.

It is much better that my[insert multiple strong swear words here] weak union that is supposed to be negotiating my new agreement. They have managed to negotiate a pay increase that is negative in real terms compared to inflation, and lock us into that low increase for 3 years. :evil:

 

[Mal]

If the union has been clever enough to plan all that I'm truely impressed.

I'm sure they're not that clever. Between the two parts involved (BASSA and Unite), they're like a bumbling group version of Maxwell Smart/ Jacques Clouseau etc. Although the real difference is they don't actually stumble over the answer, but instead just completely stuff things up.

 

[harvyk]

My guess is that the union deliberatly included the workers accepting redundancy, and deliberatly made an outrageous strike claim, to force BA to the negotiation table, knowing that the courts would rule the strike illegal. That way, the union gets its headlines, upsets BA, gets willie to the table, but doesn't have to lose face by calling off the strike.

I doubt this was their plan all along. I strongly expect that they where more than happy to strike, but would know that BA would probably do something to avoid that action (such as talk with the union). They probably didn't expect BA to go to the courts and get the strike ruled as illegal.

It does beg the question however, I wonder how many union members will become "sick" over those 12 days?

 

[Mal]

It does beg the question however, I wonder how many union members will become "sick" over those 12 days?

BA already have a strong policy against 'pattern' sickness, so I doubt this will happen - if they value their jobs.