And The Strike Achieved What, Exactly?

[Mike W]

I really think the Union is totally detached on what is really happening with BA's finances.

See this perspective from Fleetbuzz Editorial...

http://www.fleetbuzzeditorial.com/2010/03/22/ba-strike/

On Tuesday March 23 2010, the swathes of British Airways cabin crew that went on strike will return to work only to embark on another set of industrial action this coming weekend for another four days.

After the strikes have been carried out, union members will need to ask themselves just what their walkout achieved.

They’ll be going back to work knowing that the changes that the airline has brought in will still be there, just as they were when they took to the picket lines. One only need look at the IAM union strike at Boeing in the fall of 2008 - even after reaching an agreement, the IAM was greeted with the news that the second 787 production line would not be in Everett. Did the IAM achieve what they set out in terms of job security?

Will the Unite union somehow “win” what it claims it can?

Not bloody likely, many would agree. Continues...

[Sarah C]

Very good editorial in my view. While it could be argued Walsh could have done more, he is doing all he can to turn around BA's situation. The conditions and pay BA crew get is widely known to be some of the best around - it is a shame unions are not joining the real world and understanding this. I agree totally with Walsh's approach and giving in to the union will just continue the airline's spiral into bankruptcy. If everything continues as it is, BA won't survive much longer.

Changing conditions will save money - he could just slash the pay for every employee. If these employees are so unhappy with the conditions, resign and give your position to someone else. Your colleagues in the airline have taken pay cuts, worked without pay - you should do the same.

If BA goes under, the Unite union won't do anything to help the now emplyed workforce into jobs thats for sure. Unions look after themselves first.

[Matt D]

And The Strike Achieved What, Exactly?

A headache for the incumbent Labour government only 6 weeks before an election.

The union, Unite, has over 2 million members and by way of Labour party constitution has an enormous say in how Labour operates, who the Labour leaders and candidates are

Charlie Whelan, a leader of the union, was Gordon Brown's press secretary for 7 years and is still regularly seen in Downing St.

A headache for a Labour government when polls clearly show public support for the industrial action is low.

On the positive side there have been very few dalays inbound and outbound from Heathrow :)
Matt

[Robert S]

Does anyone have any idea of what's really going on over there?

BA seems to be saying that yes it is impacting them, but it's not so bad, while the union is claiming that their operations have been absolutely crippled - they're not both right (although as I continue to google as I write this, the union's latest release (http://www.unitetheunion.com/news__events/latest_news/ba_conning_passengers_unite_wa.aspx?lang=en-gb) does seem to finally admit to what we already knew and was never a secret - the airline is very actively circumventing them to keep pax moving).

I have to say - when they tried (and failed) to strike at Christmas/NY, the union automatically lost my sympathies as clearly this was not a good faith action IMO - striking at a time which was intended to cause maximum damage to the company and which as collateral damage would cause disruption to the maximum number of passengers and significant cost to the airline's standing and goodwill. That's not about merely proving a point any more.

What arguments I have bothered reading from the union have not been remotely convincing anyway to be honest... it seems to fall back to "we'll give up a bit, but we still want to be the best paid crew in the business" and never addresses the economic situation that BA finds itself in. After that it seems to devolve into prattling on about the wine selection in First and how it isn't as good as it used to be, or something.

Ultimately as per the thread title's question - these strikes don't seem to be getting them anywhere at all. At the moment their response appears to be "No problem, we'll have more strikes then". Nice.

[D Chan]

And The Strike Achieved What, Exactly?

the strike did not achieve the original purpose which is the union's strategy to force management to back down.

As they haven't back down - the strike did not achieve much except for negative publicity and severe damage to the brand image & reputation. If the strikes keeps on coming we will see one side give in.

I would have thought if the travelling public decided to stay away from flying BA in future this could be used as a valid justification for cabin crew layoffs anyway... the way things are going right now it's pretty much a lose-lose situation for all.

[Ash W]

Does anyone have any idea of what's really going on over there?


The media over here are saying the strike is really all about getting Brown and the whole of New Labour out of government. The unions in particular have never like the direction that New Labour has taken and want a return to the grass roots of Labour. Pretty short minded, as no one in their right mind would vote an old Labour (union run) government back into power.

On top of the BA strike which is giving maximum publicity to Unites cause there is also a planned strike of railway signalers nationwide next week.

You can bet after the election the strikes will stop, regardless of who gets in to power.

I saw an interview on the BBC last Friday with Willie Walsh. From what I saw he seemed pretty reasonable and willing to at least negotiate, but alas the union is playing games. One thing that has upset a few people is those that have striked have lost their right to discounted air travel. Apparently it is not a guaranteed perk, hence the strikers no longer have this right,

[Owen H]

And if you listen to the union, they were quite reasonable and willing to negotiate too ;).

What both parties say in public and both say around the table will be two different things, and I'll bet the truth is somewhere in the middle.

I think that BA are being a bit opportunistic in trying to permantly slash conditions for a temporary downturn, but likewise the union are probably playing hardball.

I'm sure BA isn't devastated about the strike though... they traditionally make the union look bad in the aviation industry.

[Ash W]

Actually Owen the union is coming across of a pack of rat bags that only talk of striking.

As for cutting conditions etc, unless I am mistaken that is not actually what BA are trying to do. The main issue is cutting the number of cabin crew on long haul flights, through natural attrition. The union claim it will lead to poorer service (how you can get any worse is beyond me though) and is dangerous, despite their numbers still being higher than other airlines and also above regulatory requirements.

I just hope the actions of the striking cabin crew doesn't leave to the downfall of BA, already a lot of people are sick of all the uncertainty that surrounds flying BA and are talking of taking their business elsewhere. I for one have already done that, recently book some holiday flights to the US in May, and as there was talk of strikes I booked on AA, despite them costing about 50GBP more.

[Robert S]

As for cutting conditions etc, unless I am mistaken that is not actually what BA are trying to do.

I also interpret the cutting of perks as simply a tool in the current situation - it will maximise the number of cabin crew who cross the picket line. It isn't hard to envisage that they will end up being restored in some future agreement with the union, assuming they ever regrow their brains.

I just hope the actions of the striking cabin crew doesn't leave to the downfall of BA, already a lot of people are sick of all the uncertainty that surrounds flying BA and are talking of taking their business elsewhere.

That's my fear also. I certainly would not have booked my upcoming flight on BA in the current situation, although I'm also hoping as suggested earlier that it is unlikely the strikes will continue beyond the election.

[Saj_A]

The media over here are saying the strike is really all about getting Brown and the whole of New Labour out of government. The unions in particular have never like the direction that New Labour has taken and want a return to the grass roots of Labour. Pretty short minded, as no one in their right mind would vote an old Labour (union run) government back into power.

Not quite -the Unite union provides untold sums of money to the Labour Govt, they have absolutely no interest in them losing power.

And if you listen to the union, they were quite reasonable and willing to negotiate too ;).

What both parties say in public and both say around the table will be two different things, and I'll bet the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Thats what they tell the media - from day one they have talked about striking with no interest on saving the airline. Their actions heighten the need for job cuts, not save them.

I also interpret the cutting of perks as simply a tool in the current situation - it will maximise the number of cabin crew who cross the picket line. It isn't hard to envisage that they will end up being restored in some future agreement with the union, assuming they ever regrow their brains.

The staff concession will not be reinstated - its a privilege, not a right and BA was right to withdraw it. Thats seats that can be sold at full price rather than subsidize disgruntled employees.

Like it or not, the changes BA is making does not affect existing staff and the measures being taken are to save the airline from collapsing under its debts and pension obligations.

The unions have made that task harder and have no understanding of the basic concept that these strikes costs money that BA simply doesnt have - and BA is at risk of bankruptcy and no Govt will step in to save them. Any business that spends more money than it earns will go out of business.

The quicker BA management get rid of the union staff, employ flexible agency staff like Ryanair who have no legal right to complain or strike, the better BA can be at providing consistent service.

The marketplace has changed and the union leadership is too retarded to understand that what they are doing is jeopardising jobs and they deserve to be jettisoned :D:D:D

[Ash W]

Not quite -the Unite union provides untold sums of money to the Labour Govt, they have absolutely no interest in them losing power.

You have missed the point. Whilst of course the unions provide money to the Labour party, the current "New Labour" is too far to the right for the liking of the unions. What they want LONG term is for New Labour to be gone and a Labour party of old which is more to the left to be in power. If that means handing power to the Tory's for a term (or two) then that is a small cost.

As for getting a non union labour force, I think you will find the UK has laws that give all employee's the right to be part of a union, so that ain't ever going to happen here.

[Sarah C]

The unions have made that task harder and have no understanding of the basic concept that these strikes costs money that BA simply doesnt have - and BA is at risk of bankruptcy and no Govt will step in to save them. Any business that spends more money than it earns will go out of business.

The quicker BA management get rid of the union staff, employ flexible agency staff like Ryanair who have no legal right to complain or strike, the better BA can be at providing consistent service.



Could not have said it better myself Saj.

Mind you, no one is forcing these people to work - if thier conditions and these changes are so difficult to deal with, why not quit? No one is forcing you to go to work. If this continues, they won't have jobs anyway and will also cost the other thousands who work for the company who have embraced change to keep the airline going.

[Ash W]

Saw on the BBC news today that BA are leasing aircraft and crew from various European airlines at the cost of about 5m GBP per day to try and keep things going.

I liked the comment from the Union rep about how upset people would be to be paying premium rates for BA service, but being put on these (somehow) 2nd rate airlines. Obviously the Union rep has never flown Euro traveler. As for the passengers, all that were interviewed said how they appreciated actually getting to where they paid good money to get taken to, rather than being taken for a ride by the union.

[Saj_A]

You have missed the point. Whilst of course the unions provide money to the Labour party, the current "New Labour" is too far to the right for the liking of the unions.

Er, no.

The current Labour Government relies on Unites financial donations - and thats why there has been no Government intervention apart from a few media snippets for news bulletins. I should know, I work with both BA and Unite.

As for getting a non union labour force, I think you will find the UK has laws that give all employee's the right to be part of a union, so that ain't ever going to happen here.

Wrong again. UK law does not give any employee in the public or private sector the right to "be part of a union". You can join one if there is a union in place, but its not a right, its a choice. Big difference.

A slew of UK airlines employ greater proportions of flexi agency staff who have no recourse to joining a union. Agency staff do not get an automatic right to join a union - thats why theres never been mutiny at Ryanair, Easyjet etc.

As for the passengers, all that were interviewed said how they appreciated actually getting to where they paid good money to get taken to, rather than being taken for a ride by the union.

And that tells you how much "support" the union has from the public. In every TV news item/newspaper, you will be hard pressed to find anyone supporting the brain-dead union.

[Ash W]

Saj I was clearly saying that what I said is what is being reported in the media. Rightly or wrongly. Anyway it makes perfect sense to me. The union has basically lost the influence it has with the (new Labour) Government as it has moved more centre left, tending even more to the right (hence the lack of action by Brown) and they want Labour to move back towards the left by getting rid of New Labour. In other words the unions want to get more control of Labour. What they are putting in in terms of funding is irrelevant, if it was Brown would be taking notice. In doing so they will clearly get rid of the current Government. Maybe in the current environment it is a smart move, as Brown is tiped to loose power anyway, so the damage of a big spill like this would be minor.

As for unions in the work place there is nothing stopping, nor compelling an employee from choosing to join a union. Likewise there is nothing that a company can do to stop employee's from joining a union. Ie it is an employees right to join a union if those so wish. That being said a company doesn't have to recognise a union, but still must consult employee's, or their representatives on certain issues.

As for the public support, have a read of some of the news papers. Most letters and commentary is generally in favour of the union. Again though I do think in some ways this is the media's way of trying to put the last nails into Brown.

[Saj_A]

Saj I was clearly saying that what I said is what is being reported in the media.

And they know what, exactly, that BA, Unite et al do not?



The union has basically lost the influence it has with the (new Labour) Government as it has moved more centre left,

That sentence alone shows how little you know about whats actually going on. Nothing could be further from the truth, but I digress since this is not a political issue.



Likewise there is nothing that a company can do to stop employee's from joining a union.

I've already told you that they can - flexi agency staff. Ryanair, Jet2, FlyBe, Easyjet all do...should I go on? :rolleyes:



That being said a company doesn't have to recognise a union, but still must consult employee's, or their representatives on certain issues.

Not with agency staff they dont - thats why LCC staff do not strike - they have no rights other than to come to work, get paid for it and go home. Everyone's a winner.


As for the public support, have a read of some of the news papers. Most letters and commentary is generally in favour of the union.

Please, dont make me laugh:

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/5352593.HAVE_YOUR_SAY__Shopper_Rant___sack_the_str ikers/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/blog/2010/mar/20/british-airways-strike-your-say

In an economic downturn, the cabin crew should be grateful they even have a job - although the financial cost of this strike will almost certainly mean more job losses and getting shot of the striking workers will be the first move BA management makes.

[Ash W]

Saj do you actually live in the UK? If so you would know about some of the other industrial disputes that have been going on for some time and the discontent that the unions have with the current Labour Government. Apart from this dispute between members of Unite and BA, there is also a current dispute between the RMT and National Rail (which may see a 4 day national strike next week), there has also been major industrial action at Royal Mail, as well as the usual goings on in London Underground.

At no point was I giving my personal view or take on the current dispute, I was saying what was being reported in the news papers. Considering this is an Australian board, with mostly Australian members it is clear that many back home wouldn't get quite the same take on current English politics through Australian media, hence why I mentioned it in this thread. Yet for some reason you feel the need to attack the view as wrong. As I said it isn't my view, but what is being reported here in the UK (where I currently live).

I will say it once again, last week I read in either the Times or the Independent an editorial that was linking all these disputes with a plan in the union movement as a whole (not Unite specifically) to return the Labour party back to the left. I am not saying it is right, I am not saying it is wrong, but THAT WAS WHAT WAS BEING REPORTED. If you disagree fine, but don't say I am wrong, when all I was doing was reporting what I read.

As for public opinion again I was reporting what I was reading in the real newspapers, and rightly or wrongly the public sentiment was in favour of the unions. I will add the disclaimer that this was last week before the 2nd round of strikes. I didn't get a chance to read a newspaper yesterday or at the weekend to see what is being reported now, though the BBC, after the report I saw last night, now seems to be leaning the way of the airline.

As for unionism I am 100% right. An employee in the UK is free to choose to join a union if they wish, they are also free to choose to not join a union if they wish. Employers have the right to recognise unions, likewise they have the right to not recognise unions, in which case they have a legal obligation consulte with EMPLOYEE's (or their appointed representative) on certain issues. This is the LAW, FULL STOP. Don't beleive me have a look at the TUC website. (for those in Aus the TUC is akin to the ACTU)

Though of course in real life things are not so simple. You have given some very valid examples of what happens in real life, but what these examples clearly show is the way some companies can and do to counter the effect unionism can have in their workplaces. For example you are talking about agency staff. Agency staff do not work for the airline do they? No they work for the agency. So of course the airline is insulated from any effect unionism may have because the employee's don't work directly for them. That does not take away the employee's legal right to be a union member, it does however minimise any effect it may have though.

Of course using contract companies doesn't mean a company isn't caught up in industrial disputes. I recall late last year there was a dispute with one of the handling companies at Heathrow. Whilst the dispute was between the company and the employee's of that company, the effect was felt by customer airlines of that handling company.

As for my personal take on this dispute, I agree 100% with you the employee's should be grateful they have a job, and their actions are doing untold damage to BA, which may well bite them in the bum later on. I do also agree with the newspaper reports that the Union movement is using this and other high profile industrial disputes to oust the current Labour leadership. Clearly everyone has given up any hope of Brown and New Labour being returned to power. The behind the scenes political in-fighting for control of Labour has started.

[Mike W]

At no point was I giving my personal view or take on the current dispute, I was saying what was being reported in the news papers. Considering this is an Australian board, with mostly Australian members it is clear that many back home wouldn't get quite the same take on current English politics through Australian media, hence why I mentioned it in this thread. Yet for some reason you feel the need to attack the view as wrong. As I said it isn't my view, but what is being reported here in the UK (where I currently live).

I will say it once again, last week I read in either the Times or the Independent an editorial that was linking all these disputes with a plan in the union movement as a whole (not Unite specifically) to return the Labour party back to the left. I am not saying it is right, I am not saying it is wrong, but THAT WAS WHAT WAS BEING REPORTED.

This is getting interesting. Ash, Saj has provided us with a number of links to published material, you have vaguely referred to "what is being reported here in the UK", have you some links or similar so we can have a look at them? :confused:

[Ash W]

Mike I read real news papers. The editorial that I was refering to was in either the Times or the Independant last week (I think it was Tuesday).

Though interestingly enough when it comes to public opinion the link to the Guardian that Saj has provided seems to be about 50/50 on the issue. As for the other link I would take that with a grain of salt, it is hardly a real news paper. Just online drivvel.

I should point out that I have no barrow to push, I don't have any involvement in BA or Unite, nor do I vote in any UK elections. As I said I reported what I have read in the papers here as I know the Australian media in particular wouldn't cover the issue fully. Whilst of course the main issue is Unite V's BA, there are other factors at play which cannot be discounted.

Anyway here are some documents that you may want to read.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1260937/Militants-BA-national-rail-strikes-want-control-Labour.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1258353/BA-Unite-strikes-Gordon-Brown-thrall-unions-Tories-claim.html

(Yes I know it is from the Tory party, so take what you will from it)

http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/61438,news-comment,news-politics,academics-say-ba-british-airways-chief-willie-walsh-wants-to-break-the-unite-union

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/25/ba-strike-letter-academics-walsh

100 Academics behind the Union.

[Mike W]

Thanks for the links. As for Unions, I'm not a fan and years ago, vowed never again ever to be involved again and consider them dinosaurs from a past era.

Whatever motivates the current Union activity with BA, it's definitely not (in my opinion) in their members interest to send BA into oblivion ulimately leaving them (and many others) jobless... just to satisfy their own antiquated lust for power?

BA can then join the British Motor Industry in the pages of history as yet another failed enterprise from the once great Empire. :rolleyes:

[Ash W]

Not a fan of unions myself Mike. When I first started in the workplace I was in the union, but saw first hand how they screwed one guy over because he didn't join. The current action is testomny as to why I have never thought about joining one again. Quite often the Unions will take issues such as this BA issue and turn it into a major political issue to peddle their own adjenda's.

In the 3 years I have lived in the UK I have seen more disruptive union strike action than I did in the 34 years I lived in Australia. Some of the action is really stupid, but ends up, as I said being used for political reasons.

[Saj_A]

Saj do you actually live in the UK? If so you would know about some of the other industrial disputes that have been going on for some time and the discontent that the unions have with the current Labour Government.

Sorry, but I'm not interested in politics affecting strikes even if you are. The simple fact remains that Unite still pays the Labour Govt, irrespective of whether the two have lost their love for one another.

And yes, I do live in the UK (when not on travel).

An employee in the UK is free to choose to join a union if they wish

I know, thats the exact same point I made when I wrote this:

UK law does not give any employee in the public or private sector the right to "be part of a union". You can join one if there is a union in place, but its not a right, its a choice. Big difference.

Getting firmly back on topic, Unite and BA may have their positions, but you can go ask anyone on the UKs streets whether they support BA or the Union and you'll find that its not the latter.

The morons at BA's cabin crew should be grateful they even HAVE a job.

[Ash W]

Sorry, but I'm not interested in politics affecting strikes even if you are. The simple fact remains that Unite still pays the Labour Govt, irrespective of whether the two have lost their love for one another..

Simple fact is politics are an recuring theme in all the major industrial actions that have or are taking place in the UK in recent times. If you want to put your head in the sand and ignore the fact than fine, but it is a major part of this dispute, rightly or wrongly.

Getting firmly back on topic, Unite and BA may have their positions, but you can go ask anyone on the UKs streets whether they support BA or the Union and you'll find that its not the latter.

The morons at BA's cabin crew should be grateful they even HAVE a job.

You would think so, but that is not what is being REPORTED. Of course though the media over here is not impartial, news papers in particular, so the reality may well be different.

[Saj_A]

Simple fact is politics are an recuring theme in all the major industrial actions that have or are taking place in the UK in recent times. If you want to put your head in the sand and ignore the fact than fine, but it is a major part of this dispute, rightly or wrongly.

I know its a theme and thats why Unite is still in cahoots with the Labour Govt - its seems you're the one in your head in the sand because you clearly do not understand the level of "goings-on" between the two. :eek:



You would think so, but that is not what is being REPORTED. Of course though the media over here is not impartial, news papers in particular, so the reality may well be different.

I know that that isnt being reported. Reporters do not have a mandate to question every UK citizen, nor do polls represent everyones opinion so it;ll always be skewed.

The fact of the matter is, is that the changes BA has made are here to stay and no striking union can change it when even the High Court threw out their retarded claims. Try pulling your head out of the sand to understand that mate...:rolleyes:

[Ash W]

I know its a theme and thats why Unite is still in cahoots with the Labour Govt - its seems you're the one in your head in the sand because you clearly do not understand the level of "goings-on" between the two. :eek:

I fully understand the going on's thank you very much. Is it that hard to realise that there is an INTERNAL power struggle in the UK Labour party that is being feed by the likes of Unite and the unions are using some of these industrial actions to achieve that?

I know that that isnt being reported. Reporters do not have a mandate to question every UK citizen, nor do polls represent everyones opinion so it;ll always be skewed.

Oh so reporters do not have a mandate to question everyone, but you have the magic ability to read the minds of everyone. Hmmm. Well as I have said I am here in the UK, I read the papers and what I said is what is being reported. That is the majority of the reports have been skewed in favour of the union.

The fact of the matter is, is that the changes BA has made are here to stay and no striking union can change it when even the High Court threw out their retarded claims. Try pulling your head out of the sand to understand that mate...:rolleyes:

Not going to argue with that, I have said all along that I think the action is wrong, yet for some reason you seem to feel the need to attack me over simply putting balance into the debate by saying what I READ in the newspapers. Almost like you think I have either a) written it, or b) made it up. You also attacked me over my (correct) claim that every employee in the UK has the right to join a union if they so wish, then turned it around when I proved you wrong to say that is what you were saying all along.

Clearly you have some closer interest in this matter than me, judging by the manner in which you are taking personal umbridge at me saying what I have read in the paper, so maybe you should reveal what your connection is to the issue then.

[Kurt A]

Topic exhausted...