BA worker’s conflict

Just as I was looking to put my disgust over the latest decision to strike at BA into words I came across today’s issue of the “News of the World” and again I am more than impressed about the quality reporting in this ‘tabloid’.

No need to say that I am totally against workers putting BA under pressure that is more like Blackmail than a reasonable dispute.

Willie Walsh says it that BA has to fight for survival against a double threat the recession and their own workforce.

What makes it so difficult for BA is that a company that provides services such as public transport needs reliable staff and cannot simply draw from a bank of temporary workers to fill gaps as people working on airlines must have some vetting to make sure that lives are not at risk from unreliable workers.

Looking at the price comparison for airline staff it is quite clear that BA staff already earn the highest salaries in the industry compared to Virgin and easyJet whilst BA’s profit has sunk to an all-time low. Now the workers try to squeeze even more wages out of the company.

I am surprised that BA workers do not have more common sense. It is a simple calculation that if your costs rise to high, you fail to catch any business because other airlines can undercut the price and so BA is in danger of losing their business altogether.

But Unite does not apply common sense to their decision to get their workers to strike and the strike cannot be based on real-time economic and commercial business calculations but comes from mere greed and egoism.

I am really pleased that BA have trained volunteer staff to take over the functions of stewardesses. Quite clearly BA cannot just draft in unvetted staff to take over work that needs persons of good character doing the job, that’s why BA wisely has trained volunteers to do it, volunteers that they can trust, to do the job perfectly well.

But why there is such great support among BA workers to support the Unite Unions is beyond my understanding.

It is the high pay of their staff that forces BA to cut the members of crew on long haul flights, so what is BA supposed to do, lower the wages of cabin crew in line with other airlines or keep the wages of the staff and cut one member instead?

I think that Union membership should be banned for workers in public industries that put passengers at risk. People’s lives are in the hands of BA staff and the morale of that staff is undermined by unions who haven’t got a clue what they are talking about or they do know that they are in the process of destroying one of the best businesses in Britain.

I am glad that Willie Walsh faces the problems with a good fighting spirit to keep BA afloat as we all like to fly BA.

I then go on to read on page 6 of the same paper NotW, that the United Union has contributed 11 million pounds into the Labour Party and that labour cannot now possibly continue to support that they are interested in the economy as well as their worker’s rights policies because you have to weigh up one with the other and cannot put worker’s rights up onto a pedestal into an economic vacuum what the Unite Unions obviously does.

BA workers should cancel their Unite membership and pay their monies into the Conservative Party instead, the party that knows that without a florishing ecnomy there are no jobs, you cannot have one without the other.

Despicable Union tactics

The Unite Union calls the latest high court judgement in the BA dispute regrettable and that it doesn’t make a bit of difference in their dispute against BA [link]. Is this just another incidence of floating about in Cloud cuckoo land and is this more evidence of the Left’s inability to face the facts?

The High Court has now twice ruled against the Union in the dispute with BA and the union carries on as usual, as if nothing has happened, continuous to ballot for strike as if there is nothing else they can do. Well there is obviously nothing else they can do. Unions are not very innovative and somewhat boring and have not learned a lot over the years it seems.

I always thought BA to be one of the proudest British firms and as such I believe they do the best they can to have a good relationship with their workforce and to nurture that good relationship. I’m certain that if BA were doing excellent business, they would improve the perks of the work force but understandably cannot reward behaviour that goes against the company.

What the unions do not understand is, that BA is a business that has to work according to the market conditions as they are and I always thought that if one works for a company that one has to do the best for the company and not act in a manner that damages the company. So why does Unite want to damage the company their workers work for?

I have not heard one good argument from Unite, e.g. calculations, business proposals and profit projections against which they base their arguments.

Of course no company in the world can continue on a contract if the trading conditions change considerably and the unions have so far never shown sufficient flexibility to even remotely understand that simple little principle.

I think the unions should take their contributions and send themselves on some courses in economy, business and accounting, that would be useful. I think the concept of life-long learning was even invented by Labour, why not lead by example?

And then maybe if the union members have gained sufficient qualifications to understand what the issues are maybe they could just reinvent themselves!

Blogging case 14-12-09

the hearing went on till after 6pm and I had to go through the staff Christmas party in the Bear Garden to be able to leave the court but found the front entrance closed and was lucky to find a judge on his way home to let me out at a side entrance, as I got lost in the corridors late at night.

I have not yet had the formal order but understand that all 3 applications from the Defendants Gray and Hilton were refused, they applied to strike the case out.

Don’t know what the 3 bloggers are so happy about, remarkably Hilton’s stance is amazing, he has simultaneously appealed against the decision of the master to have his application for summary judgment refused and had his 2 applications to throw the case out heard. So how can anyone have summary judgment and a dismissal of the case at the same time? Even John Gray’s application to have the case thrown out has been refused. Yet the 3 bloggers celebrate the decision of Master R at the Queen’s Bench High Court.

I am only a litigant in person and was totally outnumbered by the defendants, their lawyers and friends.  Sorry to miss Rainbows that evening. Going to work in the library today, voluntarily so that the users can get to see the picture archive of Tower Hamlets online soon.

I shall up-date this post, once the sealed order of the Master is available.  But I won the day throughout and even my suggestion to make alterations to the case with costs in case was allowed. I reckon the 3 bloggers celebrate that they did not have to pay costs. We are back at sqaure one and its a level playing field.

Yesterday 17 -12-09 the mood of Mr Gray has changed in that he now says: today’s High Court “ban” is bringing the British legal process and democracy itself into disrepute“. Quite a statement to make from Mr Gray, don’t you agee? Should we all wish for a Union Christmas present of strike at BA instead of enjoying ourselves and taken those long-awaited flights to visit our loved ones on Christmas?

It is not the High Court bringing democracy into disrepute with this common sense decision it is Mr Gray who takes it upon himself to criticise this most important of all British institutions with trivial remarks. It always was and has been and hopefully still is the strength of the British democracy that Justice is independent of the party that governs.

Next Newer Entries

Blog Stats

  • 55,121 hits
%d bloggers like this: