British Airways 2 - 0 Unite

[drew]

all of them or i think the result can be challenged. as some are due to problems.

I agree that all the returning officers that I saw announced the number of spoilt papers. However, I would refer to my earlier post where the polling station ran out of ballot papers. As far as I am aware, it didn't affect the result for that consituency but should the election be declared null and void because of it?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

This is a completely idiotic decision by the Court which only serves to discredit the judges.

No-one can claim that an 81 per cent vote for strike action (in a turnout of 71 per cent) is anything other than a vote for strike action. How the hell do 11 spoilt papers make any difference?

 

[Lord Bracknell]

I agree that all the returning officers that I saw announced the number of spoilt papers. However, I would refer to my earlier post where the polling station ran out of ballot papers. As far as I am aware, it didn't affect the result for that consituency but should the election be declared null and void because of it?

To be consistent (and as measured in its judgment as the judge is being in the Unite case), the Court should require the whole general election to be nullified.

 

[beorhthelm]

However, I would refer to my earlier post where the polling station ran out of ballot papers. As far as I am aware, it didn't affect the result for that consituency but should the election be declared null and void because of it?

in those seats where there were problems, they will be subject to potential court action, which might go as far to to demand a re-election for that seat and compensation to those affected.

you wouldnt invalidate the whole general election on this basis, as each seat's election is a seperate event. the shortage of ballots in Norwich doesnt impact on the result in York Central. this unite vote was a single event too, so thats still consistant (and different legislation anyway)

 

[drew]

in those seats where there were problems, they will be subject to potential court action, which might go as far to to demand a re-election for that seat and compensation to those affected.

you wouldnt invalidate the whole general election on this basis, as each seat's election is a seperate event. the shortage of ballots in Norwich doesnt impact on the result in York Central. this unite vote was a single event too, so thats still consistant (and different legislation anyway)

Do you honestly believe this is the correct decision by the court. A strike is invalid because members who did vote weren't told of 11 spoilt papers. I suppose you will merely say that is the letter of the law because your political views prevent you from looking at something objectively.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Customers ? Were they in court ? Outdated Union Dinosaurs ? What are you gabbling about ?

I was pointing out that customers who have paid for a service will now get it. Without these customers the Unite staff at Heathrow would have no job at all. What they are doing is encouraging customers to go to other airlines and that includes customers that would otherwise use services out of other airports unaffected by the strike. So cabin crew at Heathrow are putting jobs at risk of their colleagues at Gatwick ( and many Gatwick staff HATE the Heathrow cabin crew ) and all the other companies that supply BA.

I know a couple of Gatwick engineers and they are furious about the selfishness of the Heathrow cabin crew. I would suggest the Heathrow crews stay away from Gatwick because they are likely to get lynched.

 

[strings]

I am starting to wonder the competence of Unison and the RMT.

For a start, I am behind Unions. However, Unions have a unique position in law - they are allowed to induce members to break their contact. In return, they must follow some strict rules. It strikes me that the Unions are continually failing to ensure trheir ballots are watertight. If I was a member, I would be looking to save my money.

 

[HampshireSeagulls]

You would have thought that Unite, having been stuffed at their last attempt, would have been extra careful to get this one right. If I belonged to that union, I would now be querying the value of my subscriptions to a union which clearly cannot organise a piss up in a brewery, despite having been given step-by-step instructions on how to do it. If they got the procedure wrong, then they got it wrong. Again.

 

[withdeanwombat]

This is a completely idiotic decision by the Court which only serves to discredit the judges.

No-one can claim that an 81 per cent vote for strike action (in a turnout of 71 per cent) is anything other than a vote for strike action. How the hell do 11 spoilt papers make any difference?

It's the weighted voting system.Those 11 spoilt papers are worth more than the 81%.

Oh,and when I log on to read more right of centre ranting on NSC,please don't spoil it by writing sensible stuff.

 

[herbicide]

BA bullied a friend of mine who is five months pregnant to go in to work yesterday when she was feeling ill. When she rang in sick, she was put through to some HR Hitler who said they would have to assume she was supporting the strikers and would look at withdrawing her travel priviledges and docking her a days pay. She went in to work (in tears).

What charming people they are.

 

[drew]

I was pointing out that customers who have paid for a service will now get it. Without these customers the Unite staff at Heathrow would have no job at all. What they are doing is encouraging customers to go to other airlines and that includes customers that would otherwise use services out of other airports unaffected by the strike. So cabin crew at Heathrow are putting jobs at risk of their colleagues at Gatwick ( and many Gatwick staff HATE the Heathrow cabin crew ) and all the other companies that supply BA.

I know a couple of Gatwick engineers and they are furious about the selfishness of the Heathrow cabin crew. I would suggest the Heathrow crews stay away from Gatwick because they are likely to get lynched.

Just out of interest, do you beleive workers never have the right to withhold their labour under any circumstances?

I am starting to wonder the competence of Unison and the RMT.

For a start, I am behind Unions. However, Unions have a unique position in law - they are allowed to induce members to break their contact. In return, they must follow some strict rules. It strikes me that the Unions are continually failing to ensure trheir ballots are watertight. If I was a member, I would be looking to save my money.

How are they unique? Aren't BA breaching contracts by just imposing changes themselves. It works both ways.

 

[strings]

How are they unique? Aren't BA breaching contracts by just imposing changes themselves. It works both ways.

If I broke my contact at work, I would probably face disciplinary action. However if I did it following a valid Union ballot, I would be safe from disciplinary action - that is the 'unique' element I was referring to. Changes to contracts have been commonplace in my places of work - although, to be fair, my employers have always consulted staff before changing contracts.

I think unions are a fantastic force for good, but at the moment they really need some decent wins in order to prove that they are not becoming a spent force.

 

[drew]

If I broke my contact at work, I would probably face disciplinary action. However if I did it following a valid Union ballot, I would be safe from disciplinary action - that is the 'unique' element I was referring to. Changes to contracts have been commonplace in my places of work - although, to be fair, my employers have always consulted staff before changing contracts.

I think unions are a fantastic force for good, but at the moment they really need some decent wins in order to prove that they are not becoming a spent force.

Fair comment. I think the difference is your employers have consulted. If they tried to impose detrimental changes you would be able to leave and claim constructive dismissal although in the current economic state that is a huge gamble.

 

[beorhthelm]

I suppose you will merely say that is the letter of the law because your political views prevent you from looking at something objectively.

that is possibly the dumbest thing you could have said. the point of the law is to be objective. surely you would be the first to expect a court/tribunal to order BA reinstate someone if, when they dismissed them, they didnt follow the proper procedure?

anyway, i wasnt judging the decision, just pointing out GE votes would be subject to similar action if someone takes it to court. you on the other hand seem to be saying that the full weight of the law should apply where ballots where missing or where the spoilt votes not counted properly, but in an industrial dispute these things can be over looked as long as the spirit is followed. nice and objective that.

 

[Silent Bob]

BA bullied a friend of mine who is five months pregnant to go in to work yesterday when she was feeling ill. When she rang in sick, she was put through to some HR Hitler who said they would have to assume she was supporting the strikers and would look at withdrawing her travel priviledges and docking her a days pay. She went in to work (in tears).

What charming people they are.

Skiving bint, they're trying to run a business.

 

[Don Quixote]

Massive company 2 - People who make just about enough to live on 0

 

[sir danny cullip]

No sympathy for BA staff. From what I understand the changes are very minimal, the majority of people have had to make sacrifices over the last 18 months or so in order to benefit the company they work for. BA staff appear to have been bloody spoilt in the past and should realise they're lucky to have a job. Does my head in!

 

[Springal]

No sympathy for BA staff. From what I understand the changes are very minimal, the majority of people have had to make sacrifices over the last 18 months or so in order to benefit the company they work for. BA staff appear to have been bloody spoilt in the past and should realise they're lucky to have a job. Does my head in!

While not disagreeing entirely, can you imagine having to take a 20-30% paycut? I know someone who is facing this at BA, and will have to sell their house and downsize. Sure in theory 'they still have a job' but until you are in that situation where such a paycut will mean such a lifestyle change its difficult to judge

 

[Lord Bracknell]

that is possibly the dumbest thing you could have said. the point of the law is to be objective. surely you would be the first to expect a court/tribunal to order BA reinstate someone if, when they dismissed them, they didnt follow the proper procedure?

As it happens, the law on wrongful dismissal is also stacked in favour of the employer, rather than the worker. Even if an employer sacks an employee without following the correct procedure, an Employment Tribunal will uphold the dismissal if the judge thinks that the employee would have been sacked if the right procedure has been used.

Anyone see any pattern here? Are the courts defending procedures? Or are they defending big businesses?

 

[herbicide]

Skiving bint, they're trying to run a business.

Oh. hahahahahaha.