BAA Strike

[Gun]

BAA staff have voted and will be going on strike, no dates have been given yet but this will mean whole airports will be closed rather than just one operator not working at capacity. Guess who's behind the vote as well...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-10954851

[NismoGT]

Oh dear! This will cause more than a few problems.

UNITE = stE

[Tsippy]

I am guessing it's not possible to easily get rid of the staff going on strike and employ others? It's not like there's a shortage of unemployed workers out there.

Edited by Tsippy on Thursday 12th August 17:01

[Eric Mc]

Remember what Reagan did with the striking Air Traffic Controllers back in 1981?

[Plotloss]

First time all six airports will be shut at once through strike action, apparently.

[Andy Zarse]

Nice to see Gatwick excluded!

Not nice to see Messrs Simpson and Woodley's vile faces on the telly again, spouting their usual drivel.

[MX7]

"BAA, which is owned by Spain's Ferrovial, missed the target by 3%. However, Unite says staff deserve financial recognition for coming so close."

Laughable.

[Pesty]

Eric Mc said:

Remember what Reagan did with the striking Air Traffic Controllers back in 1981?

What was that? I hope he had their children tortured and pets raped

[KrazyIvan]

Pesty said:

Eric Mc said:

Remember what Reagan did with the striking Air Traffic Controllers back in 1981?

What was that? I hope he had their children tortured and pets raped

He said their strike was against the law (something to do with goverment workers not allowed to strike), gave them 48 hours to return to work, they didnt, so he fired over 11,000 of them, and banned them from working in goverment positions (or just avaition, I cant remember), this pretty much crippled the union which eventually closed.

Cameron should take note.

ETA

Reagan said:

Let me make one thing plain. I respect the right of workers in the private sector to strike. Indeed, as president of my own union, I led the first strike ever called by that union. I guess I'm maybe the first one to ever hold this office who is a lifetime member of an AFL - CIO union. But we cannot compare labor-management relations in the private sector with government. Government cannot close down the assembly line. It has to provide without interruption the protective services which are government's reason for being.

It was in recognition of this that the Congress passed a law forbidding strikes by government employees against the public safety. Let me read the solemn oath taken by each of these employees, a sworn affidavit, when they accepted their jobs: "I am not participating in any strike against the Government of the United States or any agency thereof, and I will not so participate while an employee of the Government of the United States or any agency thereof."

It is for this reason that I must tell those who fail to report for duty this morning they are in violation of the law, and if they do not report for work within 48 hours, they have forfeited their jobs and will be terminated.

Edited by KrazyIvan on Thursday 12th August 19:02

[turbobloke]

With the 1 week notice, earliest date will be 23rd August, but the news said trhey might delay for the Bank Holiday weekend. Nice.

[ninja-lewis]

On the plus side, it might encourage the further break up of BAA?

[DSM2]

ninja-lewis said:

On the plus side, it might encourage the further break up of BAA?

That would be a great idea except that UstE would then co-ordinate strikes to create the same chaos.

Just as BAA have an unfair majority control of Britain's airports, so UstE havetoo much control of the industry's employees. They should be limited to the employees at no more than 2 places in the same industry and no two unions, in the same industry, should be allowed to co-ordinate strikes at the same time.

[Jackleman]

It is UNITE trying another and even more selfish angle of attack on British Airways, would they have done this under a Labour Gov I wonder? Closing down most of BAA Airports means that BA will suffer more than the strikes from within their own ranks.

Personally I think anyone who engages in these kinds of strikes is a moron and selfish, time the laws were tightened on when a strike can take place IMHO>

[rs1952]

Jackleman said:

It is UNITE trying another and even more selfish angle of attack on British Airways, would they have done this under a Labour Gov I wonder? Closing down most of BAA Airports means that BA will suffer more than the strikes from within their own ranks.

Personally I think anyone who engages in these kinds of strikes is a moron and selfish, time the laws were tightened on when a strike can take place IMHO>

Anyone who engages in these kinds of strikes are on a hiding to nothing.

Unite members in BA have already found out the hard way that they have lost their argument, but they just haven't admitted it to themselves yet.

BAA staff have a similar future in store - loss of pay for every day they strike plus no concessions from the management

Would somebody please tell UNITE that the 1970s have come and gone?

[ninja-lewis]

DSM2 said:

ninja-lewis said:

On the plus side, it might encourage the further break up of BAA?

That would be a great idea except that UstE would then co-ordinate strikes to create the same chaos.

Just as BAA have an unfair majority control of Britain's airports, so UstE havetoo much control of the industry's employees. They should be limited to the employees at no more than 2 places in the same industry and no two unions, in the same industry, should be allowed to co-ordinate strikes at the same time.

Don't think they could do that - secondary picketing and all that. Otherwise Gatwick would be affected surely?

Jackleman said:

It is UNITE trying another and even more selfish angle of attack on British Airways, would they have done this under a Labour Gov I wonder? Closing down most of BAA Airports means that BA will suffer more than the strikes from within their own ranks.

Personally I think anyone who engages in these kinds of strikes is a moron and selfish, time the laws were tightened on when a strike can take place IMHO>

Nothing to do with BA. Unite actually have a fairly decent relationship with BA - they've just wrapped up the pensions deal and are now recommending their ground staff members accept the deal on the table from BA. The real problem at BA is the cabin crew branch - BASSA. Unite don't have a huge amount of control over them unfortunately but they're locking BASSA out of the negotiations and slapped them down hard the other day by telling cabin crew to ignore BASSA's orders not to close window blinds.

[Jackleman]

ninja-lewis said:

DSM2 said:

ninja-lewis said:

On the plus side, it might encourage the further break up of BAA?

That would be a great idea except that UstE would then co-ordinate strikes to create the same chaos.

Just as BAA have an unfair majority control of Britain's airports, so UstE havetoo much control of the industry's employees. They should be limited to the employees at no more than 2 places in the same industry and no two unions, in the same industry, should be allowed to co-ordinate strikes at the same time.

Don't think they could do that - secondary picketing and all that. Otherwise Gatwick would be affected surely?

Jackleman said:

It is UNITE trying another and even more selfish angle of attack on British Airways, would they have done this under a Labour Gov I wonder? Closing down most of BAA Airports means that BA will suffer more than the strikes from within their own ranks.

Personally I think anyone who engages in these kinds of strikes is a moron and selfish, time the laws were tightened on when a strike can take place IMHO>

Nothing to do with BA. Unite actually have a fairly decent relationship with BA - they've just wrapped up the pensions deal and are now recommending their ground staff members accept the deal on the table from BA. The real problem at BA is the cabin crew branch - BASSA. Unite don't have a huge amount of control over them unfortunately but they're locking BASSA out of the negotiations and slapped them down hard the other day by telling cabin crew to ignore BASSA's orders not to close window blinds.

Gatwick is not owned by BAA anymore, so BA should be able to operate their normal service from there assuming there are no knock on effects from elsewhere.

You sound like someone that knows what is going on from within the half-wit brigade (UNITE) - I hope not.
This is political whatever way you look at it, the BAA staff have been offered a more than fair package for the current economic climate. It is easy to see that this is UNITE trying to screw BA and ruffle the new governments feathers.

[dreamz]

this is going to be a nightmare

i work for a major travel agency and i know we're goin to get one call after another and we're not going to be able to help them

they should be happy they have a job - with the cuts to come i'm sure there's alot of people who will be more than happy to take them over.

[PabloTeK]

Seeing as BAA has been making loses for a while this seems utterly ludicrous! Couple that with the downturn in the economy, and that volcano knackering things up, this lot seem to be living in a dream world where they can get paid what they want, many people I'm sure would love their jobs right about now because at least they're employed. If you want more money, go find another employer who can afford to shower you in cake and money... BAA ain't got any.

[ninja-lewis]

Jackleman said:

ninja-lewis said:

DSM2 said:

ninja-lewis said:

On the plus side, it might encourage the further break up of BAA?

That would be a great idea except that UstE would then co-ordinate strikes to create the same chaos.

Just as BAA have an unfair majority control of Britain's airports, so UstE havetoo much control of the industry's employees. They should be limited to the employees at no more than 2 places in the same industry and no two unions, in the same industry, should be allowed to co-ordinate strikes at the same time.

Don't think they could do that - secondary picketing and all that. Otherwise Gatwick would be affected surely?

Jackleman said:

It is UNITE trying another and even more selfish angle of attack on British Airways, would they have done this under a Labour Gov I wonder? Closing down most of BAA Airports means that BA will suffer more than the strikes from within their own ranks.

Personally I think anyone who engages in these kinds of strikes is a moron and selfish, time the laws were tightened on when a strike can take place IMHO>

Nothing to do with BA. Unite actually have a fairly decent relationship with BA - they've just wrapped up the pensions deal and are now recommending their ground staff members accept the deal on the table from BA. The real problem at BA is the cabin crew branch - BASSA. Unite don't have a huge amount of control over them unfortunately but they're locking BASSA out of the negotiations and slapped them down hard the other day by telling cabin crew to ignore BASSA's orders not to close window blinds.

Gatwick is not owned by BAA anymore, so BA should be able to operate their normal service from there assuming there are no knock on effects from elsewhere.

That was my point. The distruption would be reduced if some of those airports (especially one or two of the Scottish ones) were in independent hands like Gatwick.

said:

You sound like someone that knows what is going on from within the half-wit brigade (UNITE) - I hope not.
This is political whatever way you look at it, the BAA staff have been offered a more than fair package for the current economic climate. It is easy to see that this is UNITE trying to screw BA and ruffle the new governments feathers.

Nope, just been following the (rather comedic) dispute on PPRuNe (which I suppose is probably even better informed about what the Union are doing than the Union themselves!).

If Unite wanted to get back out BA, they've far more effective ways of doing that - e.g. screwing up the aforementioned pensions deal or the ground staff negotiations or any of the other deals they've reached with BA over the past 12 months. Unite have realised that they've been led over the top by BASSA and are furious at the embarrassment it has caused them that they'd probably grasp any chance of saving face. Unfortunately, they can't really control BASSA who in the meantime will continue their irrelevant st-stirring. Their time is probably running out though as I doubt Unite will put up with the damage (Unite would be the ones responsible were BASSA to break the law) they're causing much longer

I agree it probably is political but not for the reason you give. Unite have been one of the calmer unions with regard to the coalition - they dismissed the mass autumn strike hysteria that other unions are trying to whip up. I believe the real reason they're starting to flex their muscles to is firstly reverse the decline in their decline and secondly the upcoming elections for the first General Secretary to replace the two joint General Secretaries. Candidiates need to be seen fighting for members while avoiding messy defeats or appearing weak. Hence picking battles where they think they can get an easy victory.

Edited by ninja-lewis on Thursday 12th August 22:34

[Nickyboy]

I'm so glad Gatwick isnt a part of BAA anymore, flying out in 27 days