AIBU-UNITE

[Silver1]

Am I being unreasonable to think that the UK's largest union ought to be able to conduct a ballot properly, if not the first time, then at least the second, when they are asking their members to go out on strike to bring down British Airways?
UNITE have just had an injunction granted against them in the High Court because they did not follow the rules of the ballot laid down in legislation. Just as they did not follow the rules of the ballot, as laid down in legislation last year. So now any cabin crew who go on strike tomorrow will not be protected by employment law.

The law offers a lot of protection to strikers, and in return asks that when they strike they follow a set of guidelines. Surely an employment trade union, ought to follow employment law?

Don't get me wrong I am delighted by the result, I think the cabin crew strike is about greed, and laziness, and a determination to bring down the airline, but I can see the downside that managers in other companies will now be less likely to take UNITE led negotiations seriously from here on in, and that would leave many workers vulnerable.

So AIBU?
If I duck out soon, will be back later after a dinner party!

"I think the cabin crew strike is about greed, and laziness, and a determination to bring down the airline"

No matter what the rest of your post says, this is so unreasonable it actually beggars belief.

i think the union members ought to get together and bludgeon the person responsible. i agree with your post in that something terrible went wrong...again...for the second time. I would wager that the person responsible is probably being paid to do a this job by the union ergo its members.

that person should be sacked for pure fuckwittedness.

as for their demands, well i will disagree with you there, i think that i am very lucky that i can withhold my labour in collective action should i need to and that the law is structured to support this (for the most part)

Tethersend Mumsnet is all about difference of opinion.

The fact is all of the cabin crew have now been on 7 days of strike which were not lawful, it leaves them unprotected in employment law, and the UNITE union liable for damages that could potentially bankrupt it.

the problem was that Unite failed to tell members the results of the ballot according to the letter of the law here

seems like a petty technicality.

don't know about the rights and wrongs of the strike, but it is making me very wary of booking anything with BA.

olderandwider

My understanding is that BA make no bones about it being petty. This IA was set to cost them £100,0000000 they had tried to negotiate until last Thursday- if the workers and union expect protection of the law to strike, then as the judge said today they must also follow the law.
The action was taken to protect the passengers who had booked-some of whom were people caught up in the massive backlog from the last ash cloud, it was also to protect the company. It was also taken to protect the company financially.

At the end of the day, UNITE have messed up two ballots for cabin crew over simple and silly things, and they are supposed to be representing them, this second ballot "mistake" could have (but apparently wont) cost 2500 cabin crew who went on strike their jobs, I think UNITE should be performing better for their subs.

I think that what the union leaders have been saying about this is a change in modus operandi of companies with striking employees - having strikes cancelled on technicalities as a preventative measure. I also agree with them that this could have serious implications for the future of unions and strike action. Hoever, if you're gearing up to cost your employer millions of punds then if you can't manage to follow procedure and dot the i's and cross the t's then you don't have a leg to stand on. Unite would be screaming if BA had made a small error with, for example, redundancies, so they need to play by their own rules.

I also think that the cabin crew are cutting off their nose to spite their face in this case, and they need to get a handle on what they're striking over, otherwise they'll be back in court in a few weeks time as BA challenges that they're not striking over what the members were balloted about.

Agreed Lucky1979

The union were happy to announce on the news last week it's time to use guerrilla tactics to get Willie Walsh to back down, and that's fine apparently, but they are up in arms that he has got an injunction on a "trivial technicality" when all they had to do to protect their workers was send out a bloomin letter!

From here
But Duncan Holley, a branch secretary of the British Airline Stewards and Stewardesses Association (Bassa), part of Unite, said that if no agreement is reached, the union could switch to a an unpredictable ?guerrilla campaign? designed to sow confusion among customers for up to a year.

"We could call a one day strike every three weeks or call a strike and then cancel it.

"This would not be a full-frontal assault on BA but a way of messing it up, BA would lose money from forward bookings, because nobody is going to book a holiday with them if they think there is going to be a strike."

So really suggesting BA is not playing fair is a nonsense.

So, BA goes under as no-one books with them, and all these people are therefore out of a job in a climate where new jobs will be hard to come by.

Seems so scaryteacher

I think the right to strike is important and should be protected BUT having said that Unite should be ashamed of themselves for cocking up the ballot again. Perhaps they should actually take some legal advice before ballotting again.

If I worked in Unite's legal department I'd be looking for a new job. Real schoolboy/girl errors.

Indigosky they are very basic errors. Small and insignificant according to UNITE, but if it was such a small thing to do, why couldn't they do it, especially after last year's ballot c-ck up, surely their stewards would be working with the legal team to ensure all dots were dotted, all crosses crossed. They may not like the law as it was written, but as for everyone else in this country they still have to follow it or accept the penalty if caught.

Silver1

I recall your posts from an earlier one I started that kicked off the whole pashmina row!

I don't think YABU as I still fail to understand the grievances at issue, and it seems to me that UNITE do not have the security of their members' futures at heart.

Customers continue to be reluctant to book with BA and this jeopardises too many families' jobs.

Ah yes iwastooearlytobeayummymum the old thread- where cabin crew can deliver a baby but are not insured to hold them.

That reminds me I still haven't got round to buying a pashmina.

Everyone should have the right to withdraw their labour if they are getting a bad deal and being taken advantage of. It's the chatterati who object and mainly because they don't like to be inconvenienced. Bugger the starving staff, I want my grapes peeled NOW.

I think it's important to note that Unite's members voted for a strike, the union informed members but the judgement against them was that they hadn't provided sufficient detail of the actual vote. That would include the number of spoiled ballots, the number of ballots cast, etc.

In other words, it was purely a technicality. So, while BA have won a temporary victory, there is clear support from union members who are likely to add a further grievance to what appears to be a long list. A strike is still inevitable, it has merely been delayed.

That means that rather than planning for a known strike, BA customers are left guessing - buying a ticket from this airline is pure folly.

So, yeah, the union should have done better but BA have done themselves no favours. They've actually made the situation worse and a resolution even less likely. The obvious lesson here is choose another carrier. If you book holiday tickets with BA for this summer you will be out of pocket.

Jux I hardly think the cabin crew are starving.

Rejessta yes there was a vote to strike-and UNITE should have done all they could to ensure the strike was legal and protected.

BA are closer to a resolution not further away. After June 12th, 12 weeks from the first strike, BA will be able to sack cabin crew who wish to withdraw their labour over the issue of working the Heathrow flights to the same complements as the Gatwick flights.

Stopping the strike going on for twenty days was about protecting the company from financial ruin, and protecting the public who have suffered months of disruption with strikes and volcanic ash.

If there is a procedure to be followed, it should be followed to the absolute letter.

As for the reasons for strike, I don't have much sympathy:

• less favourable contracts for new employees (check - we've had to do that with no 'apartheid' caused)
• long haul flight staff reduced from 15 to 14 with senior member having to serve food (check - who hasn't had to do more for the same pay in their job)

According to a 2009 survey for the Civil Aviation Authority, BA's cabin crew are well paid in industry terms with average earnings of £29,900 a year, including bonuses and allowances, compared with £14,400 at Virgin Atlantic.

When your company is in free-fall and the pension deficit is crippling the business, the pain has to be shared across the board. This action just seems to be accelerating the downfall because BA have now lost their reliability, and who would spend money with an unreliable company?

"I think the cabin crew strike is about greed, and laziness, and a determination to bring down the airline"

WTF?

Striking is a RIGHT - the right to withdraw labour. The unions have been all but crushed in this country. Thank God some workers still have some power.

Yes, striking is a right, but when the strike jeopardises the company and therefore jobs of the strikers it seems rather short-sighted.

ScreamingEagle - what industry does your DH work in? A 24% increase is unbelievable.