BA Cabin Crew Strike - opinions?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**filbert**

Latest on the British Airways strike:

Picket lines have been mounted at Heathrow Airport as British Airways cabin crew launched the first of a wave of strikes which threaten to disrupt flights for weeks.

The walkout by members of the Unite union went ahead after hopes of a last-minute deal collapsed, with the two sides engaged in a war of words.

BA has had to cancel some flights on Monday but says it is happy with the level of service it has been able to maintain despite the strike.

BA said in a statement: "Our operations around the world have got off to a good start. The numbers of cabin crew reporting at Heathrow are currently at the levels we need to operate our published schedule.

"Over the next five days, we will fly a full normal schedule at Gatwick and London City Airports. Cabin crew at Gatwick are continuing to report for work as normal. At Heathrow, our aim is to fly as many customers as we can during the strike period and we will be operating more than 60% of our long-haul programme and more than 50% of our short-haul flights.

"Many thousands more people will be able to use seats we have secured on more than 50 other airlines to reach their destination if they still wish to travel, or be rebooked on to an alternative BA flight departing within the next 355 days. Refunds are also available for customers whose flights have been cancelled."

Among flights that BA had to cancel were a large number of flights to and from UK destinations including Glasgow and Manchester.

There were also a number of European services affected, including flights to Milan, Athens, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Rome, Vienna, Prague, Munich, Dusseldorf and Warsaw. But BA was able to run most of its Heathrow to New York flights, with only one of its nine daily services cancelled.

Meanwhile, Unite said morale among the strikers is high and support for the industrial action is "strong".

Strikers gathered at a football ground near Heathrow before being taken to picket lines around the airport. Union chiefs Tony Woodley and Derek Simpson will address a rally at the football ground on Monday afternoon, and are expected to reiterate that the action will be suspended if BA restores travel concessions to all staff.

Not sure what to make of this whole BA thing? Apparently, the first lot of strikes were called as a response to BA cost cutting measures; they posted record losses and then announced pay freezes. The unions disagreed and strikes ensued. BA hierarchy then revoke travel concessions to those who went on strike, thus provoking further industrial action. BA are now set to record even more losses according to the city. Now part of me agrees with the unalienable right of workers to strike but another half of me wonders what good it will do them - even the most militant BA employee must appreciate that in the current financial climate, BA are in a world of hurt. Surely they can appreciate costs need to be trimmed to keep the business, and more importantly, keep themselves in a job? Going on strike in a recession is surely tantamount to crippling the company financially and ending up with all BA employees being made redundant. How can industrial action be justified in this manner? On the other hand, how else to fight for their rights? What is your opinion on this - should they strike without regard or should they keep an eye on preserving their jobs?

**Khornholio**

I'm sure the Icelandic volcano will be the "bunny blow" to BA in the end.

**Mr. Burning**

BA and the unions have to work together to ensure a fair deal for their employees. If the union and its members feel that they are being unfairly treated then strike action will follow, as in this case.

I'm sure that the staff on strike are aware of the implications as are the unions who will have to decide how many of their staff should be sacrificed if job cuts become a necessity.

For once I actually agree with a union and strike action.

**filbert**

Mr. Burning wrote:BA and the unions have to work together to ensure a fair deal for their employees. If the union and its members feel that they are being unfairly treated then strike action will follow, as in this case.

I'm sure that the staff on strike are aware of the implications as are the unions who will have to decide how many of their staff should be sacrificed if job cuts become a necessity.

For once I actually agree with a union and strike action.

I don't disagree there but a part of me can't help but think this is the wrong way to go about it. What with the volcano business and the strikes, BA's stock with customers is in freefall - BBC have already taken many vox pops with Joe Public stating they won't consider using BA again. I can see BA losing a lot of long term loyal customers over this. In the end this is only going to damage the company, it's employees and the unions. Some have positioned this whole affair as a power struggle between management and unions but if BA go bust, then no-one wins, travel perks or not.

**Waaagh_Gonads**

My opinion is that the union and its members are the dopiest bunch of nincompoops in the history of industrial action.

This isn't early 80's Thatcherite Britain. This is 2010 and they work for a company that LOST 600 million GBP last financial year.

Sack the lot of them. There are plenty of cabin crew floating around from failed airlines/cheap outfits to replace them.

That or hire Russian assasins to stab the union leaders with poison needles held in umbrellas on the streets of London.

**filbert**

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

Sack the lot of them. There are plenty of cabin crew floating around from failed airlines/cheap outfits to replace them.

I'm sure the that the Chief Exec would do just that in a heartbeat, but I think there is a law against sacking striking workers - someone else will need to clarify because I don't know the details. But I think you are right, I don't think this is the way to achieve their aims given that the company appears to be disappearing down the toilet, financially speaking.

**Ketara**

I'm actually in favour of the strikers right now. Simply put, BA pays them peanuts as it is, and is now trying to break them. They took out an injunction to try and prevent them from striking, they've attempted to level sanctions at strikers. They are, in short, attempting to play dirty. And this is hardly the 80's, it's not as if they have the right of secondary picketing or they like. I'm behind Unite on this one.

**Waaagh_Gonads**

If you can't sack them, then don't pay them.
Don't give them sickness benefits/leave.

Or even better put them all on annual leave so when they return they all have to work... Mwahahahaaa!

**Kilkrazy**

BA cabin crew are very well paid compared to other airlines like Virgin Atlantic.

Ryanair treats its staff like dung. They even have to hire their uniforms from the company.

I don't think BA can survive in its current format.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
BTW strikers don't get paid.

**Frazzled**

Meanwhile Southwest Airlines is on the March, and with a funky rapping beat.

**Henners91**

Good on them.

**Albatross**

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:My opinion is that the union and its members are the dopiest bunch of nincompoops in the history of industrial action.

This isn't early 80's Thatcherite Britain. This is 2010 and they work for a company that LOST 600 million GBP last financial year.

Sack the lot of them. There are plenty of cabin crew floating around from failed airlines/cheap outfits to replace them.

That or hire Russian assasins to stab the union leaders with poison needles held in umbrellas on the streets of London.

This.

Well, apart from the bit about assassins.

**Henners91**

Albatross wrote:
Waaagh_Gonads wrote:My opinion is that the union and its members are the dopiest bunch of nincompoops in the history of industrial action.

This isn't early 80's Thatcherite Britain. This is 2010 and they work for a company that LOST 600 million GBP last financial year.

Sack the lot of them. There are plenty of cabin crew floating around from failed airlines/cheap outfits to replace them.

That or hire Russian assasins to stab the union leaders with poison needles held in umbrellas on the streets of London.

This.

Well, apart from the bit about assassins.

I'm sure they would sack them if they could; clearly BA feels it can't.

You have an undeniable right to strike just as you have a right to decide not to go to work one day: We're not serfs, we're human beings.

If the union arrives at the decision to strike democratically, then they cannot be faulted. Sure, they should fire them... let's see them try.

**filbert**

They can't fire them - unfair dismissal law protects strikers from being sacked, providing the strike itself is legal and above board.

**Henners91**

Ah fabulous.

**Regwon**

What made it worse for BA is that they suspended the travel privileges of only the workers that went on strike. Employees have a legal right to strike so punishing them for that is like suing someone that has brought a legal action against you, for no other reason than them bringing that action against you.

**Frazzled**

Regwon wrote:What made it worse for BA is that they suspended the travel privileges of only the workers that went on strike. Employees have a legal right to strike so punishing them for that is like suing someone that has brought a legal action against you, for no other reason than them bringing that action against you.

You do know that countersuing is standard procedure in legal cases right? RIGHT?

**Gwar!**

Why not just let them go on strike, then hire people who are willing to actually work?

**Fifty**

There are also laws against that. There was a case made against Royal Mail for this last Christmas.

IIRC, they got away with it, because instead of hiring people to do the job of the striking workers, they used other employees from elsewhere in the company to do the job of the strikers, which is perfectly legal, then hired temps to do the jobs of the people who had been shifted sideways...

It is a great example of RaW vs. RaI in the real world. You'd have liked it!

**Frazzled**

So no scabs in the UK? No wonder they can strike.

**Kanluwen**

Frazzled wrote:So no scabs in the UK? No wonder they can strike all the bloody time.

Fixed that for you. It seems like every week British Airways has some kind of strike going on, or Royal Mail is "preparing to go on strike".

**Frazzled**

Is BA governemnt subsidized? If not a competitor will clean their clocks.

**Gwar!**

Frazzled wrote:Is BA governemnt subsidized? If not a competitor will clean their clocks.

It used to be IIRC. Not any more though (same with the royal mail).

TBH, this is all Labors fault. Unions are good, in Theory, but in practice they just cause everything to go down the gakker.

**Regwon**

Frazzled wrote:
Regwon wrote:What made it worse for BA is that they suspended the travel privileges of only the workers that went on strike. Employees have a legal right to strike so punishing them for that is like suing someone that has brought a legal action against you, for no other reason than them bringing that action against you.

You do know that countersuing is standard procedure in legal cases right? RIGHT?

But a counter suit require you to have a legitimate case to present, a proper reason for suing. "Because they sued me!" will not hold up in court.

BA removing travel privileges for only those that striked seems an extremely punitive response for something that they are legally intitled to do. Strikes me as rather petty.

**Frazzled**

Regwon wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Regwon wrote:What made it worse for BA is that they suspended the travel privileges of only the workers that went on strike. Employees have a legal right to strike so punishing them for that is like suing someone that has brought a legal action against you, for no other reason than them bringing that action against you.

You do know that countersuing is standard procedure in legal cases right? RIGHT?

But a counter suit require you to have a legitimate case to present, a proper reason for suing. "Because they sued me!" will not hold up in court.

BA removing travel privileges for only those that striked seems an extremely punitive response for something that they are legally intitled to do. Strikes me as rather petty.

No it doesn't. Dude you can sue for anything at any time. Whether you'll win or not is completely irrelevant.

**Gwar!**

Frazzled wrote:
Regwon wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Regwon wrote:What made it worse for BA is that they suspended the travel privileges of only the workers that went on strike. Employees have a legal right to strike so punishing them for that is like suing someone that has brought a legal action against you, for no other reason than them bringing that action against you.

You do know that countersuing is standard procedure in legal cases right? RIGHT?

But a counter suit require you to have a legitimate case to present, a proper reason for suing. "Because they sued me!" will not hold up in court.

BA removing travel privileges for only those that striked seems an extremely punitive response for something that they are legally intitled to do. Strikes me as rather petty.

No it doesn't. Dude you can sue for anything at any time. Whether you'll win or not is completely irrelevant.

In America maybe. The rest of the world has things like Laws to get in the way of our fun! :(

**Frazzled**

Gwar! wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Regwon wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Regwon wrote:What made it worse for BA is that they suspended the travel privileges of only the workers that went on strike. Employees have a legal right to strike so punishing them for that is like suing someone that has brought a legal action against you, for no other reason than them bringing that action against you.

You do know that countersuing is standard procedure in legal cases right? RIGHT?

But a counter suit require you to have a legitimate case to present, a proper reason for suing. "Because they sued me!" will not hold up in court.

BA removing travel privileges for only those that striked seems an extremely punitive response for something that they are legally intitled to do. Strikes me as rather petty.

No it doesn't. Dude you can sue for anything at any time. Whether you'll win or not is completely irrelevant.
In America maybe. The rest of the world has things like Laws to get in the way of our fun! :(

Wanna bet there Gwar?

**Orlanth**

You see the problem lies with peole thinking that if there are strikes going on there is a good reason behind them.

Mr. Burning wrote:BA and the unions have to work together to ensure a fair deal for their employees. If the union and its members feel that they are being unfairly treated then strike action will follow, as in this case.....For once I actually agree with a union and strike action.

Ketara wrote:I'm actually in favour of the strikers right now. Simply put, BA pays them peanuts as it is, and is now trying to break them.

When if you look a bit closer you can understand and report the truth.

Kilkrazy wrote:BA cabin crew are very well paid compared to other airlines like Virgin Atlantic.

Kilkrazy is right, BA staff are amongst the highest paid in the industry, at least in the UK. The difference is BA is an old company so it has old unions, and old unions do not listen or learn. Union policy was and in many cases still is, you got it, we want it, hand it over or we destroy everything.

Of course modern comapnies dont have the union menace. Try to form a union in a modern company and you will quietly lose your job, they will find a way. Meanwghile the TUC does little to nothing because it was never really there to help the workers just to support the Labour party and feather their own nest. Cases of constructive dismissal peaked under Blair, and Blair used Prescott to keep the Unions in check. Blair knew how to handle Unions, give the leaders seats on the gravy train and the followers will quickly be forgotten. Some Unions still try to raise hell, but they are a minority, namely old living as ticks on established companies that cannot shake them and those from heavilty dogmatised subgroups of professions, such a National Assaociation of Womens Teachers. After all there may well be a tendency to go off the doctrinal deep end if you are searching for 'sexism' at every turn as standard practice.

BA is just screwed. Nothing much they can do, at this point it might be better to let them fail and have a sghareholder/manager buy out and relaunch. That might be needed to get rid of the unions. Meanwhile Branson must be pissing himself laughing while he underpays his staff with impunity.

**Kilkrazy**

Branson's all right, actually, and staff morale in VA is pretty good. The pay is okay, the benefits are good and there's a pride in working there. It's a good airline running a professional service at a moderate price to passengers.

It's the real crapholes like Ryanair that workers want to avoid. Ryanair makes a lot of its profits from a combination of crapping on staff from the greatest possible height, and dodgy subsidies from desperate European local governments.

**Da Boss**

I don't see how the likes of BA can compete with Ryanair and so on while paying their staff more, driving up the cost of service. People tend to go for the cheaper option. I mean, how is striking going to fix that? Where is the money gonna come from?