British Airways cabin crew vote for Christmas strike

if that's the case we could all claim freebies from our companies
unite aren't doing themselves any favours are they ,any support they had from the public will go up in a puff of aviation fumes

If I understand correctly you are only prevented from firing someone due to strike action if your singling them out. It's ok to fire the entire lot? So why can't they do that and employ staff from other airlines who will presumably be quick to train, security cleared, and jump at the chance to move to the highest paying employer?

It's not as if this industrial action will end any time soon maybe it's time to bite the unpleasant bullet.

---------- Post added at 21:24 ---------- Previous post was at 21:23 ----------

Originally Posted by martyh

if that's the case we could all claim freebies from our companies
unite aren't doing themselves any favours are they ,any support they had from the public will go up in a puff of aviation fumes

The day their ban on striking was overturned they rode past my office (it's not too far from the high court) in a open top bus cheering and waving unite flags.

[Hom3r]

Sorry but they are extracting the urine, its time the termination of employment started.

Greed in this employment market has to end NOW.

[frogstamper]

Seems to me that when disputes become this intractable both sides should replace their chief negotiators, by this stage its only human nature that it has become personal with neither side wanting to lose face.

Originally Posted by frogstamper

Seems to me that when disputes become this intractable both sides should replace their chief negotiators, by this stage its only human nature that it has become personal with neither side wanting to lose face.

don't we still have ACAS? or aren't they involved ?

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by martyh

don't we still have ACAS? or aren't they involved ?

On that same page there was this which seems to confirm there still involved

The union also announced it will meet BA for fresh talks at the conciliation service Acas next week in an attempt to break the deadlocked dispute.

Originally Posted by Sirius

On that same page there was this which seems to confirm there still involved

that'll learn me to not read links

mayby they should have been bought in earlier or is that considered humiliation by BA/unite?

[Cobbydaler]

Even if you only dip into it, this mammoth thread is an eye opener...

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Damien

If I understand correctly you are only prevented from firing someone due to strike action if your singling them out. It's ok to fire the entire lot?

Is this a joke? If they did that then they would be singling out an entire group of employees.

---------- Post added at 15:36 ---------- Previous post was at 15:35 ----------

Originally Posted by Sirius

If they do use Human rights over this it just dilutes the human rights act even further

How so? There is a sepcific article that relates to being in a Union and not being victimised for lawfully striking.

[punky]

Originally Posted by Damien

If I understand correctly you are only prevented from firing someone due to strike action if your singling them out. It's ok to fire the entire lot? So why can't they do that and employ staff from other airlines who will presumably be quick to train, security cleared, and jump at the chance to move to the highest paying employer?

It's not as if this industrial action will end any time soon maybe it's time to bite the unpleasant bullet.

As I understand it you can only fire people for striking if the strike was not legal in the first place. This makes sense as in any circumstances if you are supposed to be working and don't you'll face the sack.

I don't know all the laws but for a strike to be legal then certain things must happen. Intention to strike has to be given in advance. Members must be balloted, etc. Once a strike is organised legally, then you can't be fired.

If however you decide to strike without doing all that (i.e. if you decide to do it spontaneously - called a wildcat strike) then some/all can be fired.

however if you do fire some and not others you can be sure lawyers would be eyeing up some discrimination lawsuits regardless who you fire.

[frogstamper]

As far as I understand where all sides presently stand, the initial dispute and sticking points have been sorted, its just this withdrawal of travel perks which seem to be the stumbling block.
I really don't understand why Willy Walsh has taken this action, it was never a part of the original dispute it appears to be a malicious action on Walsh's part.
Whatever airline you work for they all have generous staff discounts, partly because if you are flexible when you travel this perk costs the airline absolutely bupkiss.
So surely the question is has Walsh got an ulterior motive? either way the airline is suffering, losing millions and more importantly losing prestige.
Its worth remembering we are not talking about far left militants here, these are educated men and women who genuinely believe they have a fair grevance.

Originally Posted by Damien

If I understand correctly you are only prevented from firing someone due to strike action if your singling them out. It's ok to fire the entire lot? So why can't they do that and employ staff from other airlines who will presumably be quick to train, security cleared, and jump at the chance to move to the highest paying employer?

It's not as if this industrial action will end any time soon maybe it's time to bite the unpleasant bullet.

I can hardly believe that you of all people Damien believe the answer to a strike is to sack the entire workforce if management fails to get its way, holy crap why not go back to Victorian work practices?

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

There is of course the nuclear button: Fold the company and then re-launch it as BA-2010 with brand new contracts of employment.

There is a lesson from history here:



Wapping dispute. Wiki

I believe the new TUPE regulations(2006) may cover that one although it is a bit of a grey area

[Hom3r]

Originally Posted by frogstamper

I can hardly believe that you of all people Damien believe the answer to a strike is to sack the entire workforce if management fails to get its way, holy crap why not go back to Victorian work practices?

In a time were unemployment is rising, employees not recieving pay rises or taking pay cuts, and worst case losing there jobs.

Do you think that BA should back down then?

They should count themselves bloody lucky to have a job. IMHO BA should say "Strike and your fired".

Originally Posted by Hom3r

In a time were unemployment is rising, employees not recieving pay rises or taking pay cuts, and worst case losing there jobs.

Do you think that BA should back down then?

They should count themselves bloody lucky to have a job. IMHO BA should say "Strike and your fired".

wether you agree with the strike or not in these times employees rights have to protected more than ever .Empoyers know that they have plenty of unemployed people out there to choose from so the threat of sacking is hanging over empoyees heads all the time and quite frankly an awfull lot of companies are readily using that threat to remove bonuses and force people to take pay cuts

Strike and your fired is not an option for BA or any company

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

In a time were unemployment is rising, employees not recieving pay rises or taking pay cuts, and worst case losing there jobs.

Do you think that BA should back down then?

They should count themselves bloody lucky to have a job. IMHO BA should say "Strike and your fired".

Perhaps they do count themselves lucky which is why they are fighting to keep their jobs and conditions. Got any other opinions, like scrapping health and saftey in the work place or employing minors?