Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Banjax]

glad the appeal courts saw sense - it was a ludicrous and immoral decision in the first place, how dare a judge take away the basic right to withdraw labour - thats what made me mad 

[STMO999]

glad the appeal courts saw sense - it was a ludicrous and immoral decision in the first place, how dare a judge take away the basic right to withdraw labour - thats what made me mad 

Oh God, I'm not agreeing with you, am I?

[Banjax]

those aren't pillows!!!!!!!!

[pedroMV6]

Anyone who's ever flown BA will probably testify that they are simply, the best.

If people wanna "withdraw their labour" then that's up to them, but let's see who's laffing at the judge's decision when they all get fired as BA try to claw some money back................which they need to.

[Banjax]

Anyone who's ever flown BA will probably testify that they are simply, the best.

If people wanna "withdraw their labour" then that's up to them, but let's see who's laffing at the judge's decision when they all get fired as BA try to claw some money back................which they need to.

i've flown BA a few times, they were good but I know friends who fly regularly say they've definitely gone downhill since walsh took over - i wouldnt assume every passenger backs the management  8-)

[Martin_1962]

BA are haemoraging customers.

This strike will just hasten their demise and quicken the workers trip to the dole office.

[Lizzie_Zoom]

BA are haemoraging customers.

This strike will just hasten their demise and quicken the workers trip to the dole office.

Yes, exactly!

BA will go the same way as the other great names.  With airlines, remember PAN-AM and TWA?  No firm is too big for the fall.

[Nickbat]

glad the appeal courts saw sense - it was a ludicrous and immoral decision in the first place, how dare a judge take away the basic right to withdraw labour - thats what made me mad 

He didn't take away the right to strike.

He merely ruled that, in his legal opinion, Unite had not fulfilled their obligations correctly under the law. OK, so today, Appeal Judges ruled 2-1 that they DID fulfill their obligations. It was a legal ruling over a technicality.

Both employer and employee have the right to challenge each others' actions with regard to the law.
 
What has this to do with the right to strike?

Absolutely nothing.   

[Banjax]

glad the appeal courts saw sense - it was a ludicrous and immoral decision in the first place, how dare a judge take away the basic right to withdraw labour - thats what made me mad 

He didn't take away the right to strike.

He merely ruled that, in his legal opinion, Unite had not fulfilled their obligations correctly under the law. OK, so today, Appeal Judges ruled 2-1 that they DID fulfill their obligations. It was a legal ruling over a technicality.

Both employer and employee have the right to challenge each others' actions with regard to the law.
 
What has this to do with the right to strike?

Absolutely nothing.   

if the ruling had been upheld it would have, in effect, made it practically impossible for a legal strike to ever have been called again 

[Nickbat]

glad the appeal courts saw sense - it was a ludicrous and immoral decision in the first place, how dare a judge take away the basic right to withdraw labour - thats what made me mad 

He didn't take away the right to strike.

He merely ruled that, in his legal opinion, Unite had not fulfilled their obligations correctly under the law. OK, so today, Appeal Judges ruled 2-1 that they DID fulfill their obligations. It was a legal ruling over a technicality.

Both employer and employee have the right to challenge each others' actions with regard to the law.
 
What has this to do with the right to strike?

Absolutely nothing.   

if the ruling had been upheld it would have, in effect, made it practically impossible for a legal strike to ever have been called again 

Not at all. You've been listening to Woodley too much.

BA had argued in court that Unite failed to follow the correct procedures in notifying its members of the result of the ballot.

So, in the event of a ballot, a union writes to each one of its members to advise them of the result. Job done.

How difficult would that be?   

Hardly impractical.

[Nickbat]

Getting away from the legal side, there seems to be some really nice people amongst the strikers:

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/815230/Union-militants-waged-sinister-campaign-of-abuse-and-threats-against-British-Airways-cabin-crew.html

 

[Banjax]

glad the appeal courts saw sense - it was a ludicrous and immoral decision in the first place, how dare a judge take away the basic right to withdraw labour - thats what made me mad 

He didn't take away the right to strike.

He merely ruled that, in his legal opinion, Unite had not fulfilled their obligations correctly under the law. OK, so today, Appeal Judges ruled 2-1 that they DID fulfill their obligations. It was a legal ruling over a technicality.

Both employer and employee have the right to challenge each others' actions with regard to the law.
 
What has this to do with the right to strike?

Absolutely nothing.   

if the ruling had been upheld it would have, in effect, made it practically impossible for a legal strike to ever have been called again 

Not at all. You've been listening to Woodley too much.

BA had argued in court that Unite failed to follow the correct procedures in notifying its members of the result of the ballot.

So, in the event of a ballot, a union writes to each one of its members to advise them of the result. Job done.

How difficult would that be?   

Hardly impractical.

luckily the appeal courts rule and not your good self Nickbat 

[Banjax]

the News of the World is biased against the rights of workers?

whatever next? an examination of the popes religion?  

[Nickbat]

the News of the World is biased against the rights of workers?

whatever next? an examination of the popes religion?  

So making personal threats and intimidating fellow staff are all legitimate "rights of the workers"? 

I've been reading quite a few comments from staff at BA and the vast majority are against the antics of BASSA/Unite.

Still, tomorrow, BA will publish it's annual report. Maybe, with a loss of c. £600m predicted, it will force the militants to face reality. But, then, I doubt it.  

[Banjax]

the News of the World is biased against the rights of workers?

whatever next? an examination of the popes religion?  

So making personal threats and intimidating fellow staff are all legitimate "rights of the workers"? 

I've been reading quite a few comments from staff at BA and the vast majority are against the antics of BASSA/Unite.

Still, tomorrow, BA will publish it's annual report. Maybe, with a loss of c. £600m predicted, it will force the militants to face reality. But, then, I doubt it.  

and yet.....i read similar reports of management bullying and intimidation in other, less pliable, organs 

BA spend enough on planting spin in a friendly press, they really don't need you defending them, i'm sure its appreciated tho....fingers crossed eh?