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 disagree with you, I'm afraid.

My heart does not bleed for BA - a bastardly company to work for, very quick to use their power to crush any dissent expressed within the organisation at a level far below strike action. They get what they deserve, imo.

It will benefit nobody at all if BA goes under because of this.

That's emotional blackmail. 'If you don't stop striking, we will go under'.

If BA met the workers' demands, they wouldn't go under either.

Of course they are dependent on each other.

And no, of course BA doesn't exist for the benefit of it's staff. I am quite aware of how organisations and the market work.

But BA cannot exist without it's staff, which is why it must consider what the majority of them think and want.

It isn't 'emotional blackmail'. If UNITE go ahead with the guerilla tactics mentioned earlier BA will lose all credibility, nobody will fly with them and they will go bankcrupt. All of the strikers will be out of a job and UNITE will have a few less members.

It is actually quite normal for workers to take pay hits to keep a company going. My DH recently had to ask his staff whether they would all take a pay decrease or lose members of staff. They took the pay decrease (as did all management including DH). If a union had been involved no doubt there would have been strikes, the company would have gone under and nobody would have had a job.

A right to strike should also include an expectation to ensure the strike doesn't destroy the employer.

You are naive, Callisto. A right to strike is a right to withdraw labour. It is the right to exercise power.

Screaming - I'm amazed it is even legal for them to award themselves a rise of this much. Disgraceful and hardly suprising that your DH is going to strike (I would too in his shoes).

Why naive? I think you are short-sighted and blinkered if you think that anyone will benefit from the BA strike.

AndiE I understand what you are saying but;

99% of cabin crew at Gatwick did not strike- same at London City. There were many unite members who volunteered to train as cabin crew (engineers, ground staff, mangers etc, also about half of the cabin crew at Heathrow turned up for work.

So BA is considering it's staff. When Willie Walsh offered staff travel back, those who had worked through the strike, and worked very hard to save the company from the actions of a minority- so BA is looking at what ALL of its workers want.

The right to strike is a right, but UNITE are acting as if in all of this to exercise that right they are above the law- they are not. Rights bring responsibilities, and they have failed in that responsibility to their members. To the members in another areas of the airlines whose jobs are at stake if they bring down BA, and to the members who went out on strike who are not protected because of the actions of their union.

Ah well I shall find out tomorrow, when the court of appeal decides whether UNITE can appeal about whether they should have followed the law or just done what ever they liked.

It would seem the court of appeal have decided I am unreasonable to think UNITE should follow the law that they seek protection from.

I am bitterly disappointed- this company has lost £600,000000 and a huge part of that loss will be because cabin crew at Heathrow don't want the CSD to push a trolley, this is the issue they are out on strike over, staff complements. These people have just had a pay rise FFS! In this current climate many people have taken pay cuts, including many at BA, but CC have had a pay rise.

People talk about a worker's right to withdraw labour, but in economic times like this I think it is time for the employer to have the right to withdraw employment if the workers exercising that right has the potential to bring down the company. Hopefully after the 12th June BA will start exercising that right.

"Everyone should have the right to withdraw their labour if they are getting a bad deal and being taken advantage of."

Yes, by leaving the company. Not blackmailing it. Market forces - if you don't offer enough incentive to a person to work for you, they should leave and get another job, not blackmail a company.

And don't give me any crap about "there's no jobs out there". Sure, it's a tight market - because people have less money - so companies have to cut back - so employees have to cut back if they want to keep the business in business and their jobs in place. So if you don't want to get another job, support your company until the market is better, then change jobs.

Now about the "technicality" in the ballot. It is a fakt, fakt fans, that (for instance) to sack an employee, an employer (thanks to dear Mr Brown and friends) that an employer has to follow a set number of steps (including some really petty ones) and if they don't, whether it would have made a difference to the sacking or not, the employer, at a tribuneral, would be found the have unfairly dismissed. There are so many rules and regs, and hoops that the employer has to go through, all TECHNICALITIES that for Unite to argue that this was "petty" is - well - ignorant.

Furthermore, for Unite to then threaten wildcat action is pure blackmail, pure and simple, and the only outcome will be the demise of BA.

The only good thing which comes out of the demise of BA is the loss of the jobs of the ignorant striking staff who have forced the company to the edge. My immense and huge sympathy for the MAJORITY of the workers in other parts of the business who have made huge cuts to their own personal income and lives to support the company. Everyone else has - it's only the cabin crew who are being idiots.

"My heart does not bleed for BA - a bastardly company to work for, very quick to use their power to crush any dissent expressed within the organisation at a level far below strike action. They get what they deserve, imo. "

THEY get what they deserve? THEY? What, "The Manugemunt"? Bowler hats, canes and briefcases?

BA is made up of its thousands of staff - pilots, ground crew, catering, cleaning staff, booking staff, web maintenance, software development... thousands upon thousands of people whose livelihoods are at risk thanks to the idiotic and selfish actions of just one subset of those people.

Sure, a few of "The Manugemunt" may end up looking for a nice job somewhere else. But they'll get it. The thousands of others ain't gonna find it so easy right now, are they.

organicseedsareplanted great posts.

The company is in danger of folding because a few cabin crew are too proud to push, and at the end of the day if you worked in a group that brought down a company no one else is going to want you.