Quote:
Originally Posted by jrhnewark
If I may - I'm a union rep for a very good trade union working in a communications sector. I'm in my 20s, so if you wouldn't mind not going on about "job for life" stuff, I'd appreciate it; I didn't buy into a job for life, but I did buy into one where when we made an agreement as employees with the company we work for, they'd stick to it.
I'm not going to go into anything further detail as to what part of the comms sector I work in, but put it this way, the local management in the company I work for recently decided it didn't like a perk that was part of an agreement that the COMPANY put forward 18 months beforehand. It was costing them too much money in the sense that their own cost-cutting performance related incentives may be affected. It's a VERY profitable company.
The BA situation is slightly different in that BA have got themselves into an idiotic situation where they're uncompetitive, however, they nonetheless have an obligation to their employees.
Ignitionnet - as you've clearly never been exposed to the relevant employment laws, you might not understand that the law of this country dictates that contracts are not only explicit but also contain implied terms.
Implied terms are those that have been negotiated or put in place outside of the usual terms of the contract. Your usual terms may include 25 days leave and a salary, but will not include things like share incentives or perks provided due to the relevant sector you're in (i.e. travel perks in the travel sector).
So, in summary, what the BA staff want is their contractual benefits reinstating. Before you try and tell people they're not contractually binding, you might want to understand what you're taking about, if I may be so blunt!
|
I'm aware of this, duty of trust and confidence, but thank you for the reminder. I'll wait and see the result of the legal case on this matter before I agree, as of now it is not a contractual perk. I do see a case Unite brought against BA earlier this year about cabin crew cuts, which they lost, so evidently they don't have that strong an aversion to legal action.
The opinions of other BA staff on this matter are quite amusing.