The dispute is a year old.

Its actually two years old now. Do try to keep up.;)

The strikers has as good and sero public support.

Of course they have “limited” public support, because it is the public that are the real victims of all of this as they are the ones that are unintentionally stuck in the middle.

They have lost. If they value their jobs so highly, they will get back to it… and put up with the changes everyone else at BA has accepted.

They are “back to it” so to speak…they never left!?:confused:

So you are seriously suggesting that you would be more than happy to do just this…your boss/manager comes in one day, demanding to change the terms and conditions of your employment regardless of the reason, and you would quite happily just bow down and say “Yes sir/m’am, I accept”…no if’s, no but’s, no what if’s, no negotitation, nothing on your part, just a firm acceptance and then you continue on with your work?

Very true! BA did not offer changes, they imposed changes. There is a difference.

It is also true that staff received a bonus which, according to job position, was approx 1 weeks wage or £400.

Thank you englishrob…couldn’t have put it better myself.
£400…well I suppose something is better than nothing, but a bonus of £420,000 for WW is over 1000% more, seems a tad biased in favour of the management I think and is a really good way of showing how much (or little, I should say!) you value your frontline staff!?:mad:

Would be very interesting to see/hear about this officially though…any ideas as to where we might be able to find out, as I suspect that the press/media will only report about WW’s bonus.

Of course, those on here who are against the cabin crew and think that the strikers are scum and all who go on strike deserve to loose their jobs (or work in Asda?) will no doubt look at this and say “No way, they don’t deserve a bonus…”

…but of course if they actually took just a minute to look at the bigger picture, they have continued working (because, oddly enough, they actually do want to work!), and they have still been delivering the high standard of service that is expected of them, despite what they may feel/think, so I do believe that they deserve some credit/reward for their efforts to date!

I do just hope that both sides manage to see sense and are able to properly negotitate and agree on a new deal, so as to avoid any potential strikes in the near future.

they bullied non striking members…

And non-union members also bullied striking colleagues too, so its swings and roundabouts…like a bunch of kids in a playground at school.

then tried to bring other unions outside the UK into the dispute.

Indeed, the use of secondary action (strikes involving other unions in other countries) would have been illegal, and both BA and the Union knew this, but it was just a way of being able grab even more media attention whilst one party is trying to make out that they are the better of the two.

That said though, are you suggesting that if you were fighting for a cause, irrespective of what it may well be, you’d simply just stand there and fight for it and would not try to seek solodarity from anyone else that maybe willing to support your cause. Correct me if I am wrong, but that just sounds rather naive/stupid in my opinion. Surely you would welcome any support you could possibly get as it would help you to fight even stronger for your cause, even if those that support you don’t particpate in any action that you are proposing to take?!

…look how many time BA took them to court and won making any strike illegal

Ok, so I have to conceed that you do actually have a point here which I do accept; if the Union are going to ballot for strike action, then they must make sure that they are more organised and efficient when it comes to the balloting process so as to avoid the potential for it to be ruled illegal in the courts. That said though, its rather embarrasing that BA chose to go to court to try to fight it out over a minor technicality, rather than sitting round the table and continuing to negotitate.

BA is well with in their rights to sack those who striked but haven’t…

Incorrect, you cannot sack someone for going on a legal strike; and lets just be clear, when strike action has taken place in the past, it has been done so legally!

…they are trying again using the removal of Non contractual benefits CC signed a contract which states Travel benefits are non contractual are Non Negotiable and can be removed at any time, they signed it and they knew what could happen.

Without actually being able to see/read a copy of their contract for myself, and I assume that you have not either because you seem to make a fairly generalised statement above, so I am unable to directly answer on this particular point without having the necessary resources to actually look at.

Nevertheless, I have just spent a few moments reviewing my work contract as I am given certain travel benefits at work, and it clearly states that travel benefits are a concession and not a right (Rule 1), but it does not state that they can be withdrawn at anytime and for any reason. What it does say is that “deliberte dishonesty” will result in dismissal from the company.

Threatening and actually taking someone’s travel benefits away for going on a legally conducted strike is an unfair and punitive measure designed simply to scare those workers that were thinking of going on strike in to not doing so (just because they didn’t go on strike, doesn’t necessarily mean that they don’t support those that did!), and of course it was done to further increase the divisons between work colleagues, in an attempt to sure up support for their side of the argument.

No rhetoric, just opinion.

And as I have said before, we’ve been here before, so there is simply no point in answering the points that you raise because I would be repeating myself from earlier posts which have been made throughout, it just wastes my time and space on this forum.

I am no doubt one of a very small minority here, and frankly I could not care if I was the only person, all I am saying is that I would have done and gone about things differently because I actually “value” what is important in the service industry, and the people that work in it…thats all.

If you choose to work a 40 hour week for a pittance on a wage that hasn’t been raised since 2008 and are happy with this, then that’s fine, thats your choice, but just don’t expect other people to fall into the same line as you.

Indeed Interflug, such a philosophy would require genuine co-operation on both sides, however, BA have managed to make it worse for themselves by adopting the bullish, combative, anti-Union style approach to things that WW applied.

Don’t get me wrong, I know he was/is trying to run a business, but if you want to be the best at what you do, you need the best people on the front line, and in order to deliver the best, you need to constantly involve and allow innovative ideas to flow through (strangely another principle Apple has applied!) and by continually handling it the way they/he did just wasn’t the right approach, in my opinion.

Tommy, I believe that there are some people on this forum who would glady see these people pushing trollies at ASDA or out of work altogether (at least they’d know that their taxes is being used to pay for the crew’s job seekers allowance!), but sadly this is simply just a knee-jerk reaction and not something that would bring about the changes that are necessary at BA.

This may come as a bit of a shock, but I would agree with you on this Bmused, however the caviat here is that I think its only a very small minority of those people who went/go on strike that still believe in what you said about the golden age…of course things change over a period of time, and things cannot always remain the same way that they used to be for a whole host of reasons, however, it depends on how you go about communicating and implementing these changes, and as I have suggested above, this involves a change in the internal culture, just as much as a change of attitudes.