BA strike vote; I don't get it...
Mike Ross
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8418805.stm
"A strike by British Airways cabin crew planned for Christmas has been declared
illegal in a High Court ruling.
The judge agreed with BA that the cabin crew's union, Unite, had not correctly
balloted its members on the strike.
The injunction means the 12-day strike, in protest over job losses and a pay
freeze, cannot now go ahead.
Unite called it "a disgraceful day for democracy" and vowed to hold a fresh
ballot of cabin crew if the dispute with BA was not resolved."
"The judge in the case, Mrs Justice Cox, agreed with BA that Unite's ballot was
invalid because it included workers that had already accepted voluntary
redundancy.
She also poured scorn on the timing of the planned strike.
"A strike of this kind over the 12 days of Christmas is fundamentally more
damaging to BA and the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any
other time of the year," she said."
1. What on earth is a judge doing making her opinions known by "pouring scorn"
on the timing of the strike? That's none of her bloody business and not the
subject of the court case! That would make me seriously question her
independence; she appears to be judging from a personal anti-strike position
that has nothing to do with the law.
2. It's clear (although not mentioned in the story) that the dispute was only
over a few hundered votes - this in a case where there was an 80% turnout and
90% majority for strike. Surely the fair & just thing to do would be to either
order the disputed ballots discarded, or even count them all as 'no' votes;
neither would have made the slightest difference to the result.
I sense a *seriously* anti-strike, anti-union judge at work here; I wonder why,
in those circumstances, the union didn't proceed with the strike anyway, and
have her obviously-flawed judgement thrown out on appeal.
Mike
--
http://www.corestore.org
'As I walk along these shores
I am the history within'
Bill
> I sense a *seriously* anti-strike, anti-union judge at work here; I wonder why,
> in those circumstances, the union didn't proceed with the strike anyway, and
> have her obviously-flawed judgement thrown out on appeal.
This has been discussed on various frequent flier fora. Nobody was
expecting the decision, as apparently the judge is a big leftie. So
surprising all round.
Jethro
at the end of the day, the law is the law ... *If* the requirement for
a strike ballot prohibits staff that are in their noticed period (or
that have left) from taking part in that ballot, and the balloting
agency cannot *prove* there are no such votes, then ipso facto, the
vote is invalid. To be fair to the judge, she was doing the union a
favour, as if the strike had proceeded, there would have been a real
risk BA could have won a claim for damages which would have meant
UNISON would cease to exist.
Usenet Nutter
Unite
Jethro
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh well, I knew it was uni-something
Fredxx
I would agree, except that if you took out all those in that position,
regardless of whether they voted or not, there'd still be an overwelming
majority to strike!!
It is almost impossible for the union to check every vote of anyone working
out their notice. Perhaps they shouldn't have secret ballots?
Usenet Nutter
Apparently they did ask BA to supply details of those affected by
redundancy but BA said they couldn't supply the details ...
steve robinson
She is within her rights to make such comments
>
> 2. It's clear (although not mentioned in the story) that the
> dispute was only over a few hundered votes - this in a case where
> there was an 80% turnout and 90% majority for strike. Surely the
> fair & just thing to do would be to either order the disputed
> ballots discarded, or even count them all as 'no' votes; neither
> would have made the slightest difference to the result.
Over a thousand people were ineligable to vote however they were
still sent slips and encouraged to vote although it was ilegal as
they were in the process of leaving the company
> I sense a seriously anti-strike, anti-union judge at work here; I
> wonder why, in those circumstances, the union didn't proceed with
> the strike anyway, and have her obviously-flawed judgement thrown
> out on appeal.
Because they would have been held in contempt of court and subject to
damage claims from BA and possibly passengers .
BA could have also sacked any that failed to work only re employing
them at market rates which are significantly lower than wahat BA
staff get now
BA cabin crew average about �30000 a year get �85.00 a day food
allowance and stay in 5 star hotels whilst overseas waiting to return
which averages about 3 days
Virgin staff average around �14000 a year and rarely stop over and
when they do its rarely more than a day
Easy jet pay around �20000 a year
>
> Mike
steve robinson
> On 18 Dec, 14:37, Bill <jbrewster1...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > On 18 Dec, 14:30, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
> >
> > > I sense a seriously anti-strike, anti-union judge at work here;
> > > I wonder why, in those circumstances, the union didn't proceed
> > > with the strike anyway, and have her obviously-flawed judgement
> > > thrown out on appeal.
> >
> > This has been discussed on various frequent flier fora. Nobody was
> > expecting the decision, as apparently the judge is a big leftie.
> > So surprising all round.
>
> at the end of the day, the law is the law ... If the requirement for
> a strike ballot prohibits staff that are in their noticed period (or
> that have left) from taking part in that ballot, and the balloting
> agency cannot prove there are no such votes, then ipso facto, the
> vote is invalid. To be fair to the judge, she was doing the union a
> favour, as if the strike had proceeded, there would have been a real
> risk BA could have won a claim for damages which would have meant
> UNISON would cease to exist.
Its also possible BA could have been driven into administration
steve robinson
> Jethro wrote:
> >On 18 Dec, 14:37, Bill <jbrewster1...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> >>On 18 Dec, 14:30, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I sense a seriously anti-strike, anti-union judge at work
> > > > here; I wonder why, in those circumstances, the union didn't
> > > > proceed with the strike anyway, and have her obviously-flawed
> > > > judgement thrown out on appeal.
> > >
> > > This has been discussed on various frequent flier fora. Nobody
> > > was expecting the decision, as apparently the judge is a big
> > > leftie. So surprising all round.
> >
> > at the end of the day, the law is the law ... If the requirement
> > for a strike ballot prohibits staff that are in their noticed
> > period (or that have left) from taking part in that ballot, and
> > the balloting agency cannot prove there are no such votes, then
> > ipso facto, the vote is invalid. To be fair to the judge, she was
> > doing the union a favour, as if the strike had proceeded, there
> > would have been a real risk BA could have won a claim for damages
> > which would have meant UNISON would cease to exist.
>
> I would agree, except that if you took out all those in that
> position, regardless of whether they voted or not, there'd still be
> an overwelming majority to strike!!
>
> It is almost impossible for the union to check every vote of anyone
> working out their notice. Perhaps they shouldn't have secret
> ballots?
Several off those who voted to strike didnt expect the stoppage to be
over 12 days
Fredxx
>
> BA could have also sacked any that failed to work only re employing
> them at market rates which are significantly lower than wahat BA
> staff get now
>
BA can sack anyone who strikes, whether an official strike or not, when did
the law change in that respect?
MM
wrote:
>I'm rather surprised this hasn't been discussed:
There IS nothing to discuss! The union fucked up because it sent
ballot papers to people who were leaving or who had already left.
Also, now that the cabin crew staff have been made aware of the
overwhelming public anger over their cynical move to strike for TWELVE
days over Christmas, of all times of the year they could have chosen,
they may not be quite so willing to be led up the garden path by the
Commies in the New Year. Cabin crew have been advised to change out of
their identifying uniforms whilst still at work, because several have
been verbally abused. I am not surprised. They get paid double what
Virgin employees get, and are paid the best in the industry. Also, we
are in a recession and BA is in the squit. No wonder it has to make
ends meet somehow by revising the staff rotas.
MM
MM
Yep, BA was talking about seeking damages of �1m per day from the
union.
MM
MM
Several? NONE of the staff were told up front that a 12-day strike
would be called over Christmas. Most of 'em reckoned with 2 - 3 days.
MM
MM
More than possible. Highly likely. May still happen. And I'd just love
to hear the squeals then from ex-BA cabin crew, seeking to get another
job at, say, Virgin or Ryanair! Talk about turkeys voting for
Christmas, the foolishness of these folks beggars belief!
MM
Mike Ross
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>Mike Ross wrote:
<snip>
>> 1. What on earth is a judge doing making her opinions known by
>> "pouring scorn" on the timing of the strike? That's none of her
>> bloody business and not the subject of the court case! That would
>> make me seriously question her independence; she appears to be
>> judging from a personal anti-strike position that has nothing to do
>> with the law.
>
>She is within her rights to make such comments
She can make what comments she likes. But they if they reveal a prejudice
against the strike taking place they throw her judgement, and the validity of
her injunction, into question.
>> 2. It's clear (although not mentioned in the story) that the
>> dispute was only over a few hundered votes - this in a case where
>> there was an 80% turnout and 90% majority for strike. Surely the
>> fair & just thing to do would be to either order the disputed
>> ballots discarded, or even count them all as 'no' votes; neither
>> would have made the slightest difference to the result.
>
>
>Over a thousand people were ineligable to vote however they were
>still sent slips and encouraged to vote although it was ilegal as
>they were in the process of leaving the company
1. I understand from other sources that the union had sought information from BA
as to employees in process of leaving, to avoid precisely this problem, and that
BA had declined to provide it. Union made 'best efforts' to run ballot
correctly.
2. I'd have said that those leaving the company would have been MORE likely to
vote against the strike; the continuity of present terms & conditions the union
was seeking would have been of no benefit to them, whereas a strike might well
endanger their pension funds. The union, IMHO, had every reason to try to
exclude them from the ballot. And their numbers were too small to have any
significant effect on the outcome.
>> I sense a seriously anti-strike, anti-union judge at work here; I
>> wonder why, in those circumstances, the union didn't proceed with
>> the strike anyway, and have her obviously-flawed judgement thrown
>> out on appeal.
>
>Because they would have been held in contempt of court and subject to
>damage claims from BA and possibly passengers .
Damages for what? They could still show, even if the objected ballots where
excluded, that they had a huge majority for strike. Every reason to have the
flawed injuncton stayed. BA would have a hard time quantifying a loss they could
sue for due to the contested ballots.
>BA could have also sacked any that failed to work only re employing
>them at market rates which are significantly lower than wahat BA
>staff get now
That's always the case; you strike at your own risk. They couldn't do it in the
face of a solid strike of course; it would have grounded the airline for months
while they trained thousands of new crew.
>BA cabin crew average about �30000 a year get �85.00 a day food
>allowance and stay in 5 star hotels whilst overseas waiting to return
>which averages about 3 days
>
>Virgin staff average around �14000 a year and rarely stop over and
>when they do its rarely more than a day
>
>Easy jet pay around �20000 a year
Seems you have an axe to grind too.
MM
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>BA cabin crew average about �30000 a year get �85.00 a day food
>allowance and stay in 5 star hotels whilst overseas waiting to return
>which averages about 3 days
�85 is more than I spend on food in TWO WEEKS!
MM
Cynic
>steve robinson wrote:
It never has changed. An unofficial strike amounts to refusing to
carry out your contractual duties without any legitimate reason, which
is breach of contract. An employee has always been able to be fired
for a breach of contract of such magnitude.
They could however go on a "work to rule" without such a penalty being
available to BA. There are so many petty regulations in the airline
industry that its effect would likely be almost as crippling as a
strike.
--
Cynic
Ste
Lol. Didn't there used to be one on the railways about being satisfied
as to the structural integrity of the bridge before you cross it?
AlanG
Glutton.
That feeds two of us including booze
Paul Hyett
uk.legal :
>>
>>at the end of the day, the law is the law ... *If* the requirement for
>>a strike ballot prohibits staff that are in their noticed period (or
>>that have left) from taking part in that ballot, and the balloting
>>agency cannot *prove* there are no such votes, then ipso facto, the
>>vote is invalid. To be fair to the judge, she was doing the union a
>>favour, as if the strike had proceeded, there would have been a real
>>risk BA could have won a claim for damages which would have meant
>>UNISON would cease to exist.
>
>Yep, BA was talking about seeking damages of �1m per day from the
>union.
>
lawfully called strike?
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
tim....
"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:8vbni593f8a8gar3o...@4ax.com...
Wilst I agree that 85 pounds is a lot, comparing an "eating out" allowance
with the amount that you spend when you have access to a fridge and cooker
is not reasonable
tim
Cynic
wrote:
>>>at the end of the day, the law is the law ... *If* the requirement for
>>>a strike ballot prohibits staff that are in their noticed period (or
>>>that have left) from taking part in that ballot, and the balloting
>>>agency cannot *prove* there are no such votes, then ipso facto, the
>>>vote is invalid. To be fair to the judge, she was doing the union a
>>>favour, as if the strike had proceeded, there would have been a real
>>>risk BA could have won a claim for damages which would have meant
>>>UNISON would cease to exist.
>>Yep, BA was talking about seeking damages of �1m per day from the
>>union.
>But that's not possible - IIRC a union cannot be sued for damages over a
>lawfully called strike?
That's the whole point. BA did not agree that the strike would have
been lawful, and had the strike gone ahead would have sued on that
basis. It would then have been for the court to decide whether the
strike was or was not lawful. If the court found that the strike was
lawful, then BA would lose their case.
Now that one court has declared that a strike would be be unlawful,
the union would be *very* foolish to go ahead with it, because when BA
sues for losses arising from an unlawful strike it is extremely likely
that they would win.
--
Cynic
johannes
MM wrote:
>
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:30:05 -0500, Mike Ross <mi...@corestore.org>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm rather surprised this hasn't been discussed:
>
> There IS nothing to discuss! The union fucked up because it sent
> ballot papers to people who were leaving or who had already left.
But that was a minor issue since there was overwhelming support for the strike.
> Also, now that the cabin crew staff have been made aware of the
> overwhelming public anger over their cynical move to strike for TWELVE
> days over Christmas, of all times of the year they could have chosen,
> they may not be quite so willing to be led up the garden path by the
> Commies in the New Year.
That was a much more serious problem IMO. There has been a suggestion that
the ballot would not have succeeded if the members knew the full extent
of the strike plans.
Steve Walker
After 20 years of repressive, CBI-led government, a lawfully called strike
is about as likely as a four-leafed clover.
AlanG
For one day?
MM
Didn't you notice the words "more than"?
MM
MM
<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
What is NOT reasonable is an �85 per day food allowance when the
company pension scheme and the company itself are in dire straits.
Where do these people eat? The Ritz?
MM
MM
<jo...@sizefi9827622441tter.com> wrote:
>
>
>MM wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:30:05 -0500, Mike Ross <mi...@corestore.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm rather surprised this hasn't been discussed:
>>
>> There IS nothing to discuss! The union fucked up because it sent
>> ballot papers to people who were leaving or who had already left.
>
>But that was a minor issue since there was overwhelming support for the strike.
No, it is NOT a minor issue and it has nothing to do with whether the
result of the ballot would still have been a majority for industrial
action or not. Try telling an MP in a marginal seat not to worry if a
few hundred votes are invalid because someone fucked up and see what
happens next.
>> Also, now that the cabin crew staff have been made aware of the
>> overwhelming public anger over their cynical move to strike for TWELVE
>> days over Christmas, of all times of the year they could have chosen,
>> they may not be quite so willing to be led up the garden path by the
>> Commies in the New Year.
>
>That was a much more serious problem IMO. There has been a suggestion that
>the ballot would not have succeeded if the members knew the full extent
>of the strike plans.
This is because the reason for the strike is POLITICAL and the staff
are merely pawns. BA staff at other airports have long since accepted
a need for economising, so why not Heathrow? Did you watch the Commies
cheering to the rafters when the "dastardly management" was initially
beaten? No different from Red Robbo of an earlier era. Entirely
political. If the union laws are not strong enough yet, let the Tories
bring in even more legislation. I'd like to see the likes of Tony
Woodley. Derek Simpson and Len McCluskey run an airline. Actually, no,
I wouldn't; it'd be a shambles.
MM
johannes
I remember that many years ago my Christmas travel was affected by an
airline strike. But the company put me on an alternative carrier at
their expense with one stop in Copenhagen and a very tiny jet from
Copenhagen to Aarhus. (Only one seat on each side of the aisle and very
a very slim stewardess). Must have cost them quite a packet. But my
impression was that they were obliged to do this. Think of someone
planning to visit family for Christmas and unable to do so because
of a bl**** airline strike.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>I'm rather surprised this hasn't been discussed:
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8418805.stm
>
>"A strike by British Airways cabin crew planned for Christmas has been declared
>illegal in a High Court ruling.
>
>The judge agreed with BA that the cabin crew's union, Unite, had not correctly
>balloted its members on the strike.
>
>The injunction means the 12-day strike, in protest over job losses and a pay
>freeze, cannot now go ahead.
>
>Unite called it "a disgraceful day for democracy" and vowed to hold a fresh
>ballot of cabin crew if the dispute with BA was not resolved."
For Unite to describe anything as a "disgraceful day for democracy" is
disgusting.
They are a disgrace to democracy IMO.
>
>
>"The judge in the case, Mrs Justice Cox, agreed with BA that Unite's ballot was
>invalid because it included workers that had already accepted voluntary
>redundancy.
>
>She also poured scorn on the timing of the planned strike.
>
>"A strike of this kind over the 12 days of Christmas is fundamentally more
>damaging to BA and the wider public than a strike taking place at almost any
>other time of the year," she said."
>
>
>1. What on earth is a judge doing making her opinions known by "pouring scorn"
>on the timing of the strike? That's none of her bloody business and not the
>subject of the court case! That would make me seriously question her
>independence; she appears to be judging from a personal anti-strike position
>that has nothing to do with the law.
>
>2. It's clear (although not mentioned in the story) that the dispute was only
>over a few hundered votes - this in a case where there was an 80% turnout and
>90% majority for strike. Surely the fair & just thing to do would be to either
>order the disputed ballots discarded, or even count them all as 'no' votes;
>neither would have made the slightest difference to the result.
>
It may be "clear" but it can't be done. There was an application for
an injunction based on the ballot being illegal. There were only two
possible courses of action for the court - to allow the injunction, or
to refuse it.
Given that the ballot *did* breach the laws relating to industrial
action, the judge really didn't have much choice.
>I sense a *seriously* anti-strike, anti-union judge at work here; I wonder why,
>in those circumstances, the union didn't proceed with the strike anyway, and
>have her obviously-flawed judgement thrown out on appeal.
>
Because the union would then have been bankrupted, and the leaders
very possibly jailed for breaking the injunction.
They didn't appeal because they knew full well they would have no
chance whatsoever of winning an appeal.
The judge may well have had personal opinions against this strike, but
the judgment was still quite plainly correct.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I didn't cheat, I just changed the Rules!
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:58:21 +0000, "steve robinson"
><st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Mike Ross wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> 1. What on earth is a judge doing making her opinions known by
>>> "pouring scorn" on the timing of the strike? That's none of her
>>> bloody business and not the subject of the court case! That would
>>> make me seriously question her independence; she appears to be
>>> judging from a personal anti-strike position that has nothing to do
>>> with the law.
>>
>>She is within her rights to make such comments
>
>She can make what comments she likes. But they if they reveal a prejudice
>against the strike taking place they throw her judgement, and the validity of
>her injunction, into question.
>
Not really, unless there is some doubt about the law.
>>> 2. It's clear (although not mentioned in the story) that the
>>> dispute was only over a few hundered votes - this in a case where
>>> there was an 80% turnout and 90% majority for strike. Surely the
>>> fair & just thing to do would be to either order the disputed
>>> ballots discarded, or even count them all as 'no' votes; neither
>>> would have made the slightest difference to the result.
>>
>>
>>Over a thousand people were ineligable to vote however they were
>>still sent slips and encouraged to vote although it was ilegal as
>>they were in the process of leaving the company
>
>1. I understand from other sources that the union had sought information from BA
>as to employees in process of leaving, to avoid precisely this problem, and that
>BA had declined to provide it. Union made 'best efforts' to run ballot
>correctly.
>
I haven't seen anything from a reputable source to back that up. And
it does seem unlikely, because then they would have argued that
strongly in court, and would probably have won their case.
>2. I'd have said that those leaving the company would have been MORE likely to
>vote against the strike; the continuity of present terms & conditions the union
>was seeking would have been of no benefit to them, whereas a strike might well
>endanger their pension funds. The union, IMHO, had every reason to try to
>exclude them from the ballot. And their numbers were too small to have any
>significant effect on the outcome.
All irrelevant.
The law says that for a ballot to be valid, best efforts must be made
it exclude those not eligible to vote.
>
>>> I sense a seriously anti-strike, anti-union judge at work here; I
>>> wonder why, in those circumstances, the union didn't proceed with
>>> the strike anyway, and have her obviously-flawed judgement thrown
>>> out on appeal.
>>
>>Because they would have been held in contempt of court and subject to
>>damage claims from BA and possibly passengers .
>
>Damages for what? They could still show, even if the objected ballots where
>excluded, that they had a huge majority for strike. Every reason to have the
>flawed injuncton stayed. BA would have a hard time quantifying a loss they could
>sue for due to the contested ballots.
Damages for every pound that the unlawful strike cost BA.
They would almost certainly win, and the costs would certainly have
been high enough if they did, to bankrupt the union.
There is NO reason to suppose that the injunction is "flawed".
Even if the judge had the discretion to decide that the infringement
was minor enough to allow the strike to go ahead, she was under no
obligation to use that discretion.
And any appeal could only have been won if it could be shown that the
judge was wrong in law, or that the facts presented were wrong (not if
the facts were incomplete, only if the facts actually given were
incorrect).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Who is "they" anyway?
steve robinson
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:58:21 +0000, "steve robinson"
> <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Mike Ross wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> 1. What on earth is a judge doing making her opinions known by
> >> "pouring scorn" on the timing of the strike? That's none of her
> >> bloody business and not the subject of the court case! That would
> >> make me seriously question her independence; she appears to be
> >> judging from a personal anti-strike position that has nothing to
> do >> with the law.
> >
> > She is within her rights to make such comments
>
> She can make what comments she likes. But they if they reveal a
> prejudice against the strike taking place they throw her judgement,
> and the validity of her injunction, into question.
The ensueing legal arguments would drag on for several months which
as far as the union are concerned is pointless , better to have
another vote .
Any such challenge is also likely to reveal that the union leadership
failed to make it clear the ramifications and length of the strike
action to its members before any vote was taken
The union has lost several court actions recently because of
inaccuracies and misleading infomation surrounding thier ballot
procedures
>
> >> 2. It's clear (although not mentioned in the story) that the
> >> dispute was only over a few hundered votes - this in a case where
> >> there was an 80% turnout and 90% majority for strike. Surely the
> >> fair & just thing to do would be to either order the disputed
> >> ballots discarded, or even count them all as 'no' votes; neither
> >> would have made the slightest difference to the result.
> >
> >
> > Over a thousand people were ineligable to vote however they were
> > still sent slips and encouraged to vote although it was ilegal as
> > they were in the process of leaving the company
>
> 1. I understand from other sources that the union had sought
> information from BA as to employees in process of leaving, to avoid
> precisely this problem, and that BA had declined to provide it.
> Union made 'best efforts' to run ballot correctly.
>
The courts decided differently , BA were not at liberty to release
this infomation
The unions website actively encouraged the leavers to vote which is
ilegal
> 2. I'd have said that those leaving the company would have been
> MORE likely to vote against the strike; the continuity of present
> terms & conditions the union was seeking would have been of no
> benefit to them, whereas a strike might well endanger their pension
> funds. The union, IMHO, had every reason to try to exclude them
> from the ballot. And their numbers were too small to have any
> significant effect on the outcome.
>
Makes no difference , if the vote was ilegal , its ilegal
> >> I sense a seriously anti-strike, anti-union judge at work here; I
> >> wonder why, in those circumstances, the union didn't proceed with
> >> the strike anyway, and have her obviously-flawed judgement thrown
> >> out on appeal.
> >
> > Because they would have been held in contempt of court and
> > subject to damage claims from BA and possibly passengers .
>
> Damages for what? They could still show, even if the objected
> ballots where excluded, that they had a huge majority for strike.
> Every reason to have the flawed injuncton stayed. BA would have a
> hard time quantifying a loss they could sue for due to the
> contested ballots.
>
BA could quantify the losses , as could the passengers who had to
rebook with other airlines or miss appointments , christmas with
relatives holidays etc
It doesnt matter what majority they had the ballot was ilegal and
needed to be re run
> > BA could have also sacked any that failed to work only re
> > employing them at market rates which are significantly lower than
> > wahat BA staff get now
>
> That's always the case; you strike at your own risk. They couldn't
> do it in the face of a solid strike of course; it would have
> grounded the airline for months while they trained thousands of new
> crew.
Rubbish there's plenty of cabin crew floating around at the moment
several airlines have either gone to the wall or laid off staff ,
considering that BA is still one of the best employers in the eurpean
avaiation industry for pay i cant really see many cabin crew risking
losing such a cushy number .
>
> > BA cabin crew average about �30000 a year get �85.00 a day food
> > allowance and stay in 5 star hotels whilst overseas waiting to
> > return which averages about 3 days
> >
> > Virgin staff average around �14000 a year and rarely stop over and
> > when they do its rarely more than a day
> >
> > Easy jet pay around �20000 a year
>
> Seems you have an axe to grind too.
No just stateing the facts BA staff are well paid , thier employer is
loosing around �1000.00 per minute the pension fund is �3 billion in
the red other employees have already accepted pay freezes and
modifications to working practices , to survive they need to make
changes that allow them to compete with the likes of virgin , ryanair
,easyjet and a mirad of other carriers .
You could understand greivances if they were paid �6.00 per hour but
they are not and they all need to face facts its not a particulary
skilled job being the tea lady on an airoplane
> Mike
steve robinson
steve robinson
�85.00 is not a lot in some of these 5 star hotels , a sandwich can
set you back �25.00 .
steve robinson
On some occasions yes
Trust No One�
> �85.00 is not a lot in some of these 5 star hotels , a sandwich can
> set you back �25.00 .
Are you serious ?
--
Peter <X-Files fan>
Paul Hyett
uk.legal :
>
>>But that's not possible - IIRC a union cannot be sued for damages over a
>>lawfully called strike?
>
>That's the whole point. BA did not agree that the strike would have
>been lawful, and had the strike gone ahead would have sued on that
>basis. It would then have been for the court to decide whether the
>strike was or was not lawful. If the court found that the strike was
>lawful, then BA would lose their case.
>
>Now that one court has declared that a strike would be be unlawful,
>the union would be *very* foolish to go ahead with it, because when BA
>sues for losses arising from an unlawful strike it is extremely likely
>that they would win.
Of course, that couldn't stop union members individually phoning in
'sick' on the days concerned...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
AlanG
Yes but since you didn't say something like ' double wot I spend in
two weeks' I assumed it was close to �85.
MM
I didn't even bother to tot it all up. I just knew I was safe in
saying that �85 is more than I spend on food in two weeks. In the New
Year I'll work through a typical shopping list and let you know. Be
aware that a large part of my shopping is done at Aldi/Lidl OR on the
discount (marked down) shelves of the major supermarkets, which
usually provide me with at least two good meals a week.
MM
MM
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>tim.... wrote:
>
>>
>> "MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:8vbni593f8a8gar3o...@4ax.com...
>> > On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:58:21 +0000, "steve robinson"
>> ><st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > > BA cabin crew average about �30000 a year get �85.00 a day food
>> > > allowance and stay in 5 star hotels whilst overseas waiting to
>> > > return which averages about 3 days
>> >
>> > �85 is more than I spend on food in TWO WEEKS!
>>
>> Wilst I agree that 85 pounds is a lot, comparing an "eating out"
>> allowance with the amount that you spend when you have access to a
>> fridge and cooker is not reasonable
>>
>> tim
>
>�85.00 is not a lot in some of these 5 star hotels , a sandwich can
>set you back �25.00 .
You see the problem that BA has got to surmount then.....?
MM
MM
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>MM wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:58:21 +0000, "steve robinson"
>> <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > BA cabin crew average about �30000 a year get �85.00 a day food
>> > allowance and stay in 5 star hotels whilst overseas waiting to
>> > return which averages about 3 days
>>
>> �85 is more than I spend on food in TWO WEEKS!
>>
>> MM
So gobsmacked you couldn't add anything?
MM
Usenet Nutter
wrote:
snipped>>
>>I sense a *seriously* anti-strike, anti-union judge at work here; I wonder why,
>>in those circumstances, the union didn't proceed with the strike anyway, and
>>have her obviously-flawed judgement thrown out on appeal.
>>
>
>Because the union would then have been bankrupted, and the leaders
>very possibly jailed for breaking the injunction.
>
>They didn't appeal because they knew full well they would have no
>chance whatsoever of winning an appeal.
>
They were not given leave to Appeal....They could,and presumably still
can,apply directly to the Court of Appeal if they wish to.
steve robinson
yes
steve robinson
> steve robinson wrote:
> > �85.00 is not a lot in some of these 5 star hotels , a sandwich
> > can set you back �25.00 .
>
> Are you serious ?
Yes i am very serious
I got charged �25 per sandwich , �11.00 per pot of tea for two and
�3.00 for a glass of tap water whilst setting up a display for a
client in a conference room in a very well known London hotel ,
fortunately the client got charged for these as an extra cost
( this cost was discounted as well!!!)
Their view was it kept the rif raf out , then again the suites were
bigger than most peoples houses came with a personal butler
tim....
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:ov0oi5h53oqcfbtoe...@4ax.com...
I don't agree.
They didn't appeal because they had no chance of the decision being made in
time for them to go ahead with their "deliberately timed to be most
damaging" strike.
If they are going to have to wait until the new year for the strike to be
legal they may just as well re-ballot
From what the union claimed, they made the best effort possible to make sure
that the list of people that was balloted was correct. Some of the people
who BA claimed were balloted incorrectly only left the company the week
before, yet when the union asked VBA for the list of leavers, BA refused to
supply that information. What more is the union expected to do?
(and no I don't support the union position in this dispute, I'm just asking
the question on a general legal principle)
tim
steve robinson
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 at 18:54:36, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote in uk.legal :
> >
> > > But that's not possible - IIRC a union cannot be sued for
> > > damages over a lawfully called strike?
> >
> > That's the whole point. BA did not agree that the strike would
> > have been lawful, and had the strike gone ahead would have sued
> > on that basis. It would then have been for the court to decide
> > whether the strike was or was not lawful. If the court found
> > that the strike was lawful, then BA would lose their case.
> >
> > Now that one court has declared that a strike would be be
> > unlawful, the union would be very foolish to go ahead with it,
> > because when BA sues for losses arising from an unlawful strike
> > it is extremely likely that they would win.
>
> Of course, that couldn't stop union members individually phoning in
> 'sick' on the days concerned...
No but it wouldnt stop BA from disiplining those that do either
DB.
"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote >
>
> I got charged �25 per sandwich , �11.00 per pot of tea for two and
Perhaps you'll name this hotel, so that we'll all know to avoid it?
--
DB.
steve robinson
BA were not in a position legally to release that infomation as its
covered by the DPA
The unions website actually actively encouraged leavers to vote wnen
they should have made it clear that those members who were leaving
were ineligable to vote in the ballot
kkm
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> writes
>Jethro wrote:
>
>> On 18 Dec, 14:37, Bill <jbrewster1...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> > On 18 Dec, 14:30, Mike Ross <m...@corestore.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > I sense a seriously anti-strike, anti-union judge at work here;
>> > > I wonder why, in those circumstances, the union didn't proceed
>> > > with the strike anyway, and have her obviously-flawed judgement
>> > > thrown out on appeal.
>> >
>> > expecting the decision, as apparently the judge is a big leftie.
>> > So surprising all round.
>>
>> at the end of the day, the law is the law ... If the requirement for
>> a strike ballot prohibits staff that are in their noticed period (or
>> that have left) from taking part in that ballot, and the balloting
>> vote is invalid. To be fair to the judge, she was doing the union a
>> favour, as if the strike had proceeded, there would have been a real
>> risk BA could have won a claim for damages which would have meant
>> UNISON would cease to exist.
>
Well, I hope the union go for another ballot in Jan, and make it well
known both to their members and the public at large that any resultant
strikes will take place over Easter and the two May bank holidays. That
should be as painful to Willie Walsh as a strike over Xmas.
K.
--
kkm
<kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:58:21 +0000, "steve robinson"
><st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>BA cabin crew average about �30000 a year get �85.00 a day food
>>allowance and stay in 5 star hotels whilst overseas waiting to return
>>which averages about 3 days
>
>�85 is more than I spend on food in TWO WEEKS!
>
>MM
The airlines block book rooms in hotels on a room only basis; rooms only
so no kitchen available.
If they eat in the 5* hotel restaurant, its going to be around �15 for
breakfast, �25 for lunch and �40 for dinner, so the allowance isn't
unreasonable. Sometimes they will be in a city centre and there will be
other eating options available, other times in hotels on the fringes of
airports with no other options available as they won't have access to a
car.
It is somewhat unfair to compare what one spends on food bought in a
supermarket or local high street shop and prepared at home, compared
with the options you have if you are staying in a hotel. One hotel I
know some airlines use near Gatwick has no alternative eating options
other than in the hotel. Yes there are taxis, but they cost money too.
I travel a lot on business, I get reimbursed based on receipts, and on
some days I spend over �85 on meals.
--
K.
Paul Hyett
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in uk.legal :
>>
>> Of course, that couldn't stop union members individually phoning in
>> 'sick' on the days concerned...
>
>No but it wouldnt stop BA from disiplining those that do either
But they couldn't *prove* they weren't genuinely sick, though...
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Ste
wrote:
Hell fire! At that price for a pot of tea I'd want the butler to hold
the cup to my mouth as I sipped!
Cynic
wrote:
>Hell fire! At that price for a pot of tea I'd want the butler to hold
>the cup to my mouth as I sipped!
I once stayed at such a hotel for a night. The evening meal cost a
couple of hundred pounds per person. Breakfast was included in the
four-figure nightly room rate. Each person had a personal waiter who
stood just behind our chairs, and were ready to assist, unasked, with
every need, topping up glasses and replacing napkins after every use,
lighting our cigarettes after the meal.
I hated it. The attention was, for me, oppressive and inhibiting.
The room was pretty spectacular, but at the end of the day I cannot
say that it was any more comfortable or enjoyable than most other
hotels I've stayed at. The TV programs were the same, the drinks
tasted the same - and TBH I prefer to get drinks from a minibar or a
DIY kettle than use room service. I don't have to put any clothes on
before having my morning coffee if I'm making it myself in the room!
--
Cynic
Ian Jackson
<cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
of a company 'do'). We didn't have butlers or personal waiters, but I
can't say I liked it. There were none of the usual facilities in the
room. Everything was strictly room service (which, of course, wasn't
'included', so we didn't use it). It was a memorable experience, but in
no way could it be called enjoyable. Presumably there are those that to
- but each to his own. I suspect that BA staff avoid such places like
the plague.
--
Ian
MM
>In article <8vbni593f8a8gar3o...@4ax.com>, MM
><kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:58:21 +0000, "steve robinson"
>><st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>BA cabin crew average about �ｿｽ30000 a year get �ｿｽ85.00 a day food
>>>allowance and stay in 5 star hotels whilst overseas waiting to return
>>>which averages about 3 days
>>
>>�ｿｽ85 is more than I spend on food in TWO WEEKS!
>>
>>MM
>
>The airlines block book rooms in hotels on a room only basis; rooms only
>so no kitchen available.
>
>If they eat in the 5* hotel restaurant, its going to be around �ｿｽ15 for
>breakfast, �ｿｽ25 for lunch and �ｿｽ40 for dinner, so the allowance isn't
>unreasonable. Sometimes they will be in a city centre and there will be
>other eating options available, other times in hotels on the fringes of
>airports with no other options available as they won't have access to a
>car.
>
>It is somewhat unfair to compare what one spends on food bought in a
>supermarket or local high street shop and prepared at home, compared
>with the options you have if you are staying in a hotel. One hotel I
>know some airlines use near Gatwick has no alternative eating options
>other than in the hotel. Yes there are taxis, but they cost money too.
>
>I travel a lot on business, I get reimbursed based on receipts, and on
>some days I spend over �ｿｽ85 on meals.
Hang your head in shame, then, and next time you're munching on your
�ｿｽ25 sarnie, think of kids in deprived families who'll be lucky to get
much to eat at all for the whole week, especially if mum spends all
her cash at the bingo and dad spends his on booze. And if kids don't
touch a nerve, think of the old people who have to decide between
heating and eating as the temperature plummets.
MM
MM
<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> BA refused to
>supply that information.
Why the heck should the COMPANY provide the union with information to
help the UNION bankrupt the COMPANY?
> What more is the union expected to do?
Play by the rules, or take the consequences, which it has been forced
to.
MM
tim....
> On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:12:02 -0000, "tim...."
> <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> BA refused to
>>supply that information.
>
> Why the heck should the COMPANY provide the union with information to
> help the UNION bankrupt the COMPANY?
Because there's a law that sys the union have to ballot such a set of
people.
But that law has to be proportionate.
Expecting the union to keep an exact mirror of a company's employees for a
ballot of those employees is not reasonable (in legal terms). Either there
has to be some discretion used when deciding how accurate the union's list
is, or there has to be a requirement on the company to provide such a list.
tim
Ian Jackson
<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
voting form (or however they do it) a note spelling out clearly who is -
and who is not - entitled to vote?
"You may take part in the is ballot provided that:
(1) You are currently a member of the Unite.
(2) You are currently employed by BA.
(3) You are not under notice of termination of employment at BA."
That should do it.
--
Ian
Big Les Wade
>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:12:02 -0000, "tim...."
><tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> BA refused to
>>supply that information.
>
>Why the heck should the COMPANY provide the union with information to
>help the UNION bankrupt the COMPANY?
Apparently they don't have to. There was no other way for the union to
get this information, so it is clear that the union did all it could to
hold a fair ballot.
Therefore the ballot result should have been upheld, especially as the
disputed votes could not have changed the result. That's what happens in
a general election, after all.
>> What more is the union expected to do?
>
>Play by the rules,
It did - see above.
>or take the consequences, which it has been forced
>to.
Well, it took the consequences of a very unfair, biased and unjustified
decision, so it seems to me.
--
Les
If by creating a police state we can save just one child, then it will all have
been worthwhile.
MM
wrote:
>Well, it took the consequences of a very unfair, biased and unjustified
>decision, so it seems to me.
Unfair? Biased? What ARE you on about! The ballot was NOT conducted
according to the rules, end of.
MM
Alex Heney
wrote:
>MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> posted
>>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:12:02 -0000, "tim...."
>><tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> BA refused to
>>>supply that information.
>>
>>Why the heck should the COMPANY provide the union with information to
>>help the UNION bankrupt the COMPANY?
>
>Apparently they don't have to. There was no other way for the union to
>get this information, so it is clear that the union did all it could to
>hold a fair ballot.
That is so totally NOT clear that it is actually completely clear the
opposite is true.
They were not helped by having no list, that much is true.
But they could - and *should* have still made it quite clear on the
ballot form that such people were not eligible to vote.
And (i haven't seen their website, so this is hearsay), from what I
heard, they actively encouraged them on their website to vote.
>
>Therefore the ballot result should have been upheld, especially as the
>disputed votes could not have changed the result. That's what happens in
>a general election, after all.
>
Whether the disputed votes could have changed the vote is completely
irrelevant.
>>> What more is the union expected to do?
>>
>>Play by the rules,
>
>It did - see above.
No it didn't - see above.
>>or take the consequences, which it has been forced
>>to.
>
>Well, it took the consequences of a very unfair, biased and unjustified
>decision, so it seems to me.
The only decision open to the judge, according to the law.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Funny, only sensible people agree with me.
Big Les Wade
>On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 17:25:29 +0000, Big Les Wade <L...@nowhere.com>
>wrote:
>
>>MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> posted
>>>On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:12:02 -0000, "tim...."
>>><tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> BA refused to
>>>>supply that information.
>>>
>>>Why the heck should the COMPANY provide the union with information to
>>>help the UNION bankrupt the COMPANY?
>>
>>Apparently they don't have to. There was no other way for the union to
>>get this information, so it is clear that the union did all it could to
>>hold a fair ballot.
>
>That is so totally NOT clear that it is actually completely clear the
>opposite is true.
>
>They were not helped by having no list, that much is true.
>
>But they could - and *should* have still made it quite clear on the
>ballot form that such people were not eligible to vote.
Perhaps they did. Have you seen a copy of the ballot form? And who says
such people were ineligible to vote?
>And (i haven't seen their website, so this is hearsay), from what I
>heard, they actively encouraged them on their website to vote.
Since it's hearsay, it's probably not true.
>>Therefore the ballot result should have been upheld, especially as the
>>disputed votes could not have changed the result. That's what happens in
>>a general election, after all.
>>
>
>Whether the disputed votes could have changed the vote is completely
>irrelevant.
You'd have to show me the law that states this. It doesn't seem
irrelevant to me. As I pointed out, it's not irrelevant in a general
election; if a small number of votes cast in a constituency are proven
to have been fraudulent, they don't hold the election again unless the
result could have been affected.
>>>> What more is the union expected to do?
>>>
>>>Play by the rules,
>>
>>It did - see above.
>
>No it didn't - see above.
Oh yes it did. Or rather, Oh perhaps it may well have done.
>>>or take the consequences, which it has been forced
>>>to.
>>
>>Well, it took the consequences of a very unfair, biased and unjustified
>>decision, so it seems to me.
>
>The only decision open to the judge, according to the law.
State the relevant law and the facts that prove your claim.
Cynic
>>I travel a lot on business, I get reimbursed based on receipts, and on
>>some days I spend over �85 on meals.
>
>Hang your head in shame, then, and next time you're munching on your
>�25 sarnie, think of kids in deprived families who'll be lucky to get
>much to eat at all for the whole week, especially if mum spends all
>her cash at the bingo and dad spends his on booze. And if kids don't
>touch a nerve, think of the old people who have to decide between
>heating and eating as the temperature plummets.
And if the PP declined to buy the �25 sarnie, it what way would that
alleviate any of the things you mention?
Another "think of the children" mantra from someone who has utterly
failed to think at all.
--
Cynic
Bob Ferguson
"Fredxx" <fre...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:hgga77$3g0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> steve robinson wrote:
>>
>> BA could have also sacked any that failed to work only re employing
>> them at market rates which are significantly lower than wahat BA
>> staff get now
>>
>
> BA can sack anyone who strikes, whether an official strike or not, when
> did the law change in that respect?
>
Not since nu-labour change the law. You cannot sack an employee who is
participating in a lawfully called strike.
Bob Ferguson
"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.net> wrote in message
news:kvfni5dcrh5mk5ap3...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:38:37 +0000, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:58:21 +0000, "steve robinson"
>><st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>allowance and stay in 5 star hotels whilst overseas waiting to return
>>>which averages about 3 days
>>
>>
> Glutton.
>
> That feeds two of us including booze
In a five star hotel's restaurant, �85 wouldn't even cover the wine.
Bob Ferguson
"steve robinson" <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote in message
news:xn0gj318...@news.virginmedia.com...
I know what you mean. I had a suite at the Dorchester recently*. The 2
rooms main rooms were bigger than my entire house without adding in the
bathroom, walk in wardrobe etc. etc..
* Not intentionally. I got an upgrade because the occupant of the rather
more ordinary room that I had booked had decided to stay on and there were
no other similar rooms available.
Bob Ferguson
"Ste" <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:31d653b0-aa69-412c...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
----------
That's the footman's job.
AlanG
So don't permit BA staff to frequent 5* places on expenses. When I
worked away we were limited to 3* unless there was no alternative. The
one time I stayed in a 4* the expenses chit had to go the MD before it
was authorised
Big Les Wade
>> did the law change in that respect?
>>
>
>Not since nu-labour change the law. You cannot sack an employee who is
>participating in a lawfully called strike.
Which clause of what law?
martin
The reason they (the flight crew) get put up into very good hotels is
because they need them. The airline will have negotiated very good rates
for the hotel anyway.
The crew need the good hotel because they might need to check in at any
time of the day or night, the hotel needs to be very quite because the
crew might well need to be sleeping when everyone else is having lunch.
A cheap hotel will have trouble providing that kind of service. The last
thing you want is a tired pilot because the room he's in has a corridor
with poor sound-proofing and he has has a disturbed days sleep ready for
flying out late evening.
The hotels cut right to the bone to host them because they are good
payers, very regular customers and don't have a habit of wrecking the place.
tim....
"Bob Ferguson" <robert....@google.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4b2f8ed7$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>
> "Fredxx" <fre...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:hgga77$3g0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> steve robinson wrote:
>>>
>>> BA could have also sacked any that failed to work only re employing
>>> them at market rates which are significantly lower than wahat BA
>>> staff get now
>>>
>>
>> BA can sack anyone who strikes, whether an official strike or not, when
>> did the law change in that respect?
>>
>
> Not since nu-labour change the law.
only to put it back to something nearer what it was before Thatcher took it
away.
> You cannot sack an employee who is participating in a lawfully called
> strike.
a rule which was introduced by the Liberals in the 1906 Trade Disputes Act
tim
tim....
"Big Les Wade" <L...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:UHOvosAx...@obviously.invalid...
> Bob Ferguson <robert....@google.co.uk> posted
>>
>>"Fredxx" <fre...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>> BA can sack anyone who strikes, whether an official strike or not, when
>>> did the law change in that respect?
>>>
>>
>>Not since nu-labour change the law. You cannot sack an employee who is
>>participating in a lawfully called strike.
>
> Which clause of what law?
Employment Relations Act.
Having googled that much up for you I think you can do the rest yourself
tim
Alex Heney
Of course you can.
But only if you sack *all* the workers participating in the strike.
You are not allowed to select within them.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Life would be easier if I had the source code.
Big Les Wade
No. First, there are at least two such Acts. Second, only the person who
made the claim can tell me which clause he thinks is the relevant one.
Otherwise I will find myself examining every single clause of the Act to
discover whether it could be taken to prohibit the sacking of a striking
employee.
If somebody makes a disputed claim, *he* has to support it.
Bob Ferguson
"tim...." <tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7pa7gn...@mid.individual.net...
Thank you. I got it from an Employment Tribunal panelist.
Bob Ferguson
>
> "Bob Ferguson" <robert....@google.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:4b2f8ed7$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
>>
>> "Fredxx" <fre...@spam.com> wrote in message
>> news:hgga77$3g0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> steve robinson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> BA could have also sacked any that failed to work only re employing
>>>> them at market rates which are significantly lower than wahat BA
>>>> staff get now
>>>>
>>>
>>> BA can sack anyone who strikes, whether an official strike or not, when
>>> did the law change in that respect?
>>>
>>
>> Not since nu-labour change the law.
>
> only to put it back to something nearer what it was before Thatcher took
> it away.
>
And soon to be reversed yet again when the Tories are back in power.
>> You cannot sack an employee who is participating in a lawfully called
>> strike.
>
> a rule which was introduced by the Liberals in the 1906 Trade Disputes Act
>
and has see-sawed ever since.
Bob Ferguson
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:leqvi5l7d4rco22vi...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:06:49 -0000, "Bob Ferguson"
> <robert....@google.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Fredxx" <fre...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>news:hgga77$3g0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> steve robinson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> BA could have also sacked any that failed to work only re employing
>>>> them at market rates which are significantly lower than wahat BA
>>>> staff get now
>>>>
>>>
>>> BA can sack anyone who strikes, whether an official strike or not, when
>>> did the law change in that respect?
>>>
>>
>>Not since nu-labour change the law. You cannot sack an employee who is
>>participating in a lawfully called strike.
>>
>
> Of course you can.
>
> But only if you sack *all* the workers participating in the strike.
> You are not allowed to select within them.
>
Alex, it seems that I owe you an appolgy.
I previously described you as a 'know it all'. I must now retract that
allegation as your last post has disproved the allegation because you are
wrong.
And just to confirm, I checked with my wife last night (you regualrly sits
on employmetntribunal panels).
It is illegal to sack any employee who is participating in lawfully
constituted industrial action (Section 16 - Employment Relations Act 1999).
Bob Ferguson
OK. Try Section 16 - Employment Relations Act 1999 (Schedule 15 is worth a
shufty as well).
The Employment Relations Act 2004 tightened up the ballot procedure leading
up to a strike.
Alex Heney
<robert....@google.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:leqvi5l7d4rco22vi...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:06:49 -0000, "Bob Ferguson"
>> <robert....@google.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Fredxx" <fre...@spam.com> wrote in message
>>>news:hgga77$3g0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> steve robinson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> BA could have also sacked any that failed to work only re employing
>>>>> them at market rates which are significantly lower than wahat BA
>>>>> staff get now
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> BA can sack anyone who strikes, whether an official strike or not, when
>>>> did the law change in that respect?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Not since nu-labour change the law. You cannot sack an employee who is
>>>participating in a lawfully called strike.
>>>
>>
>> Of course you can.
>>
>> But only if you sack *all* the workers participating in the strike.
>> You are not allowed to select within them.
>>
>
>Alex, it seems that I owe you an appolgy.
>
>I previously described you as a 'know it all'. I must now retract that
>allegation as your last post has disproved the allegation because you are
>wrong.
>
I've always maintained that I didn't :)
>And just to confirm, I checked with my wife last night (you regualrly sits
>on employmetntribunal panels).
>
>It is illegal to sack any employee who is participating in lawfully
>constituted industrial action (Section 16 - Employment Relations Act 1999).
>
You are right.
Interesting.
The amendments created by that act make section 238 of the Trade Union
and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (which is what I
wrongly understood to still be the case) rather pointless.
I don't think there will be many cases where action is "official"
without also being "protected".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Why doesn't the Bat Computer ever crash?
MM
So you expect BA staff to eat in five star hotels, do you! No wonder
BA will soon go bust.
MM
MM
>AlanG wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:10:52 -0000, "Bob Ferguson"
>> <robert....@google.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> "AlanG" <inv...@invalid.net> wrote in message
>>> news:kvfni5dcrh5mk5ap3...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:38:37 +0000, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:58:21 +0000, "steve robinson"
>>>>> <st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> BA cabin crew average about �ｿｽ30000 a year get �ｿｽ85.00 a day food
>>>>>> allowance and stay in 5 star hotels whilst overseas waiting to return
>>>>>> which averages about 3 days
>>>>> �ｿｽ85 is more than I spend on food in TWO WEEKS!
>>>>>
>>>> Glutton.
>>>>
>>>> That feeds two of us including booze
>>> In a five star hotel's restaurant, �ｿｽ85 wouldn't even cover the wine.
>>>
>> So don't permit BA staff to frequent 5* places on expenses. When I
>> worked away we were limited to 3* unless there was no alternative. The
>> one time I stayed in a 4* the expenses chit had to go the MD before it
>> was authorised
>
>The reason they (the flight crew) get put up into very good hotels is
>because they need them. The airline will have negotiated very good rates
>for the hotel anyway.
>
>The crew need the good hotel because they might need to check in at any
>time of the day or night, the hotel needs to be very quite because the
>crew might well need to be sleeping when everyone else is having lunch.
>A cheap hotel will have trouble providing that kind of service. The last
>thing you want is a tired pilot because the room he's in has a corridor
>with poor sound-proofing and he has has a disturbed days sleep ready for
>flying out late evening.
>
>The hotels cut right to the bone to host them because they are good
>payers, very regular customers and don't have a habit of wrecking the place.
So, if BA organise all this for the crew, why the �ｿｽ85 per day food
allowance?
MM
MM
wrote:
>On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 11:47:02 +0000, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>I travel a lot on business, I get reimbursed based on receipts, and on
>>>some days I spend over �85 on meals.
>>
>>Hang your head in shame, then, and next time you're munching on your
>>�25 sarnie, think of kids in deprived families who'll be lucky to get
>>much to eat at all for the whole week, especially if mum spends all
>>her cash at the bingo and dad spends his on booze. And if kids don't
>>touch a nerve, think of the old people who have to decide between
>>heating and eating as the temperature plummets.
>
>And if the PP declined to buy the �25 sarnie, it what way would that
>alleviate any of the things you mention?
It would be a start on alleviating greed.
>Another "think of the children" mantra from someone who has utterly
>failed to think at all.
You mean, because I don't agree with you? How petty.
MM
tim....
What usually happens with staff stopovers is that they will be put up at the
hotel that is the easiest to get to. This will often be the most expensive
5 star hotel in the area. The airline will often get a very large discount
for the amount of business that they give the hotel, but this won't extend
to meals
tim
Norman Wells
It was my understanding that flight crew stayed generally in 5-star hotels,
and cabin crew in 4-star ones, subject of course to availability. But we're
only talking of course about hotels abroad, which may or may not be the same
standard and expense as the corresponding star ratings on hotels in Britain
might suggest, where they would not stay.
Alex Heney
Because food is not included in "all this".
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Plan to be more spontaneous.
Bob Ferguson
No. But then we've moved on to food and drink prices.
MM
<robert....@google.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"MM" <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:4o0mj59hv5u1m8cjr...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 21 Dec 2009 15:10:52 -0000, "Bob Ferguson"
>> <robert....@google.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"AlanG" <inv...@invalid.net> wrote in message
>>>news:kvfni5dcrh5mk5ap3...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:38:37 +0000, MM <kyli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 15:58:21 +0000, "steve robinson"
>>>>><st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>BA cabin crew average about �30000 a year get �85.00 a day food
>>>>>>allowance and stay in 5 star hotels whilst overseas waiting to return
>>>>>>which averages about 3 days
>>>>>
>>>>>�85 is more than I spend on food in TWO WEEKS!
>>>>>
>>>> Glutton.
>>>>
>>>> That feeds two of us including booze
>>>
>>>In a five star hotel's restaurant, �85 wouldn't even cover the wine.
>>
>> So you expect BA staff to eat in five star hotels, do you! No wonder
>> BA will soon go bust.
>>
>
>No. But then we've moved on to food and drink prices.
I am still astonished by the huge �85 allowance PER DAY merely FOR
FOOD! BA could halve it in an instant and the crew would still be able
to feed themselves more than adequately anywhere in the world.
MM