ANNOUNCEMENT : ALL OF ROYAL MAIL'S EMPLOYMENT POLICIES (AGREEMENTS) AT A GLANCE (Updated 2021)... HERE

ANNOUNCEMENT : PLEASE BE AWARE WE ARE NOT ON FACEBOOK AT ALL!

BA wins High Court ban on cabin crew strikes

Latest Royal Mail and CWU news.This is an open forum.
DirtyHarry
Posts: 5051
Joined: 13 May 2007, 23:16
Gender: Male
Location: London

Re: BA wins High Court ban on cabin crew strikes

Post by DirtyHarry »

Tman wrote:
I'm sure they will, and all the time the "oppressed" have Wiis, East Enders and BOGOFs on cheap lager, that's the way it will stay.
There was never any serious threat of armed insurrection when the times really were hard, so why would the Great Unwashed jeopardise the happy situation of "money for watching day time TV" now? :crazy:
Hence, "enjoy it while it lasts", the appalling mis-management of the nation's finances by the ruling class in government, and by the middle class thieves, fraudsters, liars, in the city of London, could, and most probably will, jeopardise what's left of this country's welfare system.
In a nation with no heavy industry to speak of, too few jobs, too many people, let's hope for the sake of peace and tranquility, that the gaggle of public schoolboys currently infesting Downing Street don't make claiming benefit by people with no jobs, no hope of ever getting a job, as hard as it is for us in work to strike against an unfair employer. If they don't, then as the song goes, "There may be trouble ahead."
Britain would do well not to be too complacent, she may have had no reason to fear an "armed insurrection" in the past, but the future is a more unpredictable animal, for one thing, the make-up of the British population is vastly different to what it was only 60 years ago.
There are Britons today, many of them, who have "armed insurrection" running through their veins, thanks to their forebears in far off distant lands. We live in interesting times, Tman. The coin has been tossed, will it be heads, the status quo remains the same?, or will it be tails, the people decide one day to make that leap into the unknown? Time will tell. :cuppa
BELIAL
Posts: 6758
Joined: 15 Jun 2007, 17:33
Gender: Female
Location: Nowhere

Re: BA wins High Court ban on cabin crew strikes

Post by BELIAL »

andy2007 wrote:
Tman wrote:Jeez, what are you drinking?

Someone said this-
The ruling class are in the ascendancy, the working class at it's feet allowing themselves to be trampled on, as they play this sordid game according to rules devised by their oppressors.
My message to the ruling class, and those that would waste their short time on this earth attending to their every whim and command, is.....Enjoy it while it lasts.
which implies "something's going to happen" to the "ruling class" :left: now you can read my reply...

I'm sure they will, and all the time the "oppressed" have Wiis, East Enders and BOGOFs on cheap lager, that's the way it will stay.
There was never any serious threat of armed insurrection when the times really were hard, so why would the Great Unwashed jeopardise the happy situation of "money for watching day time TV" now?
where you can probably discern that I'm implying people aren't "angry" enough yet for the first poster's prophecy/prediction to come true, and never will be all the time life's little pleasures (like Wii, booze etc) are available to those at the bottom of the heap.
After all, they're hardly going to bite the hand that feeds them, are they.... :chuckle

Now, as for the rest of your post.. :crazy:
I'm drinking Coca-Cola.

It seems that I was wrong about what you meant. Sorry.

But you also seem to be labouring under a misaprehension: I didn't even bring the subject of anger up, yet you seem to think that I did. I see your point about the availability of distractions, to calm people down. Although in my experience, alcohol doesn't calm people down. But it does reduce their inhibitions, which makes violence more likley, not less. :d'oh!

Why do you assume that the phrase "Enjoy it while it lasts." means that they'd face violence? :confused
That may well have been what DirtyHarry meant. I don't know. But it could just as easily mean that the current Political climate, with sufficient pressure from the Unions. Could potentially loose some, or all of them, their positions. How many of them have already hit major financial difficulties, and lost their jobs, because of the Credit Crunch, and Global Recession? :hmmmm
Strikes are expensive at the best of times. But at the moment, the results could be catastrophic. Which is why BA are fighting so hard to avoid them now. Don't forget, they've lost all that money from the ash cloud already, and are likley to loose a lot more from it later. Which just adds to the pressure. :hmmmm

I'm not sure what else you didn't understand in my post. But if you'd be kind enough to point it out. I'd be happy to clarify it for you.
Don't waste your tjme Andy , the guy is a tad unhinged . Just look up psychopathic narcissism , you'll see how many boxes are ticked ,and this individual is way up the scale. Course if you just want to develop the thread then fine :chuckle
Bye
Tman
Posts: 4134
Joined: 21 Oct 2007, 09:57

Re: BA wins High Court ban on cabin crew strikes

Post by Tman »

But he wants to his "tjime", it's what we're on here for.

Poor response from you though, and you've used it several times before. More time on Wiki required...? :chuckle
borders
Posts: 1303
Joined: 11 Sep 2007, 09:10

Re: BA wins High Court ban on cabin crew strikes

Post by borders »

DirtyHarry wrote:
Tman wrote:
I'm sure they will, and all the time the "oppressed" have Wiis, East Enders and BOGOFs on cheap lager, that's the way it will stay.
There was never any serious threat of armed insurrection when the times really were hard, so why would the Great Unwashed jeopardise the happy situation of "money for watching day time TV" now? :crazy:
Hence, "enjoy it while it lasts", the appalling mis-management of the nation's finances by the ruling class in government, and by the middle class thieves, fraudsters, liars, in the city of London, could, and most probably will, jeopardise what's left of this country's welfare system.
In a nation with no heavy industry to speak of, too few jobs, too many people, let's hope for the sake of peace and tranquility, that the gaggle of public schoolboys currently infesting Downing Street don't make claiming benefit by people with no jobs, no hope of ever getting a job, as hard as it is for us in work to strike against an unfair employer. If they don't, then as the song goes, "There may be trouble ahead."
Britain would do well not to be too complacent, she may have had no reason to fear an "armed insurrection" in the past, but the future is a more unpredictable animal, for one thing, the make-up of the British population is vastly different to what it was only 60 years ago.
There are Britons today, many of them, who have "armed insurrection" running through their veins, thanks to their forebears in far off distant lands. We live in interesting times, Tman. The coin has been tossed, will it be heads, the status quo remains the same?, or will it be tails, the people decide one day to make that leap into the unknown? Time will tell. :cuppa
superb post :Very Happy , 5 years of a Tory Government in this present global climate could well tip the balance !!!
"why should it just be the bankers, politicians and the idle rich who get all the best things ? we demand a standard of living for our members that enables them to share in the fine wines and times that the likes of Cameron and his Eton buddies take for granted " - the late great Bob Crow RIP.
TrueBlueTerrier
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR
Posts: 72608
Joined: 30 Dec 2006, 10:29
Gender: Male
Location: On my couch

Mark Steel: BA strike - a complete load of ballots

Post by TrueBlueTerrier »

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 76257.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

At last, someone's come up with a clean, decisive system for holding elections. The way it works is everyone has a vote, and then the management of British Airways and a judge decide the result. They've tried this method with the ballot for a strike amongst cabin crews, who voted 7,482 to 1,789 in favour. So the courts ruled that this didn't count because the Unite union didn't mention, in some of its announcements, that 11 ballot papers had been spoilt.

There has been the odd critic of this ruling, such as the President of North Korea who said, "Oh that's going TOO far", but you can see BA's point. Because there may have been many union members who were only prepared to support the strike as long as the number of spoilt ballot papers wasn't a prime number. Imagine how cheated they'd have felt if they'd lost three days' pay, assuming the number of spoilt papers was 12 or something divisible by seven and then they'd found out the shocking truth when it was too late.

So the courts decided the strike was illegal and the ballot has to start again. This time it could be 10,000 in favour and none against, and a judge will say, "It still doesn't count, because the union didn't announce the result in a Geordie accent." So Unite will comply with that, and the judge will say, "No, that was Middlesborough. You'll have to start all over again." The next vote will be annulled because the union reps didn't convey the result as a piece of contemporary dance, and the one after that won't count because a writing expert will declare some ballot papers were marked by a voter's left hand, which is the Devil's hand and Satan isn't registered as a paid-up Unite member. Then there'll be a rule that as they'll be thrown away in the event of a strike, each in-flight dinner should have a vote, which will be assumed to be "No" if they don't bother.

This would make more sense than the statement by BA chief Willie Walsh, who said, "The vast majority of our staff have demonstrated they don't support this strike." He can say that because unlike the union, which is relying on the shady evidence of the number of votes cast, he's going on the more dependable basis of what he sort of reckons.

So it's a shame the BBC didn't get Walsh to present their election night broadcast. He'd have been able to offer insights such as, "15,000 votes there for the Liberal Democrats, 11,000 for the Tories and 6,000 for Labour, so an overwhelming victory for the Portuguese Social Democrats."

In fact, if Gordon Brown had thought of it he'd have put Walsh in charge of the general election, because thousands of people were locked out of polling stations, and few returning officers read out the number of spoilt papers, so it would have gone to court, and we'd have to hold the whole thing again and again for ever and Brown would never have had had to go.

Walsh has declared that the court's decision "gives the union an opportunity to pause and reflect", as if union members are likely to react to this by realising the management is fair after all. But in his soft voice and said from a position of power, it reminds you of Al Pacino in The Godfather. Next time Walsh is on Newsnight, when he's asked about whether he's talking to the union he'll say, "Jeremy – don't ever – ever – ask me about my business."

Walsh is also complaining that the regulations on when it's safe to fly through volcanic ash are all wrong. His analysis appears to be that the safe level of particles is always slightly more than whatever it happens to be at the time. But with his understanding of statistics that could be worrying. There could be wrecked planes strewn across Europe and he'd say, "The vast majority of the ash has demonstrated it has no interest in disrupting our customers."

But the union had better make allowances for this if they hold another ballot. Because if the result is overwhelmingly for a strike, the courts will say, "But you didn't announce the results to those members who voted but are now lost somewhere in the Atlantic, so off you go and start again."
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts.
Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility.
If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link
My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
borders
Posts: 1303
Joined: 11 Sep 2007, 09:10

Re: BA wins High Court ban on cabin crew strikes

Post by borders »

we live in a democratic society but only if the elite/judge says so !!!!
"why should it just be the bankers, politicians and the idle rich who get all the best things ? we demand a standard of living for our members that enables them to share in the fine wines and times that the likes of Cameron and his Eton buddies take for granted " - the late great Bob Crow RIP.
andy2007
Posts: 3971
Joined: 14 Sep 2007, 10:16
Gender: Male
Location: Earth

Re: BA wins High Court ban on cabin crew strikes

Post by andy2007 »

I think you've summed it up perfectly Teebs!
Don't knock Insanity
it's just another outlook on Reality!
TrueBlueTerrier
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR
Posts: 72608
Joined: 30 Dec 2006, 10:29
Gender: Male
Location: On my couch

Re: BA wins High Court ban on cabin crew strikes

Post by TrueBlueTerrier »

Unite win appeal :nana :nana :nana

will post story when I can
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts.
Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility.
If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link
My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
TrueBlueTerrier
FORUM ADMINISTRATOR
Posts: 72608
Joined: 30 Dec 2006, 10:29
Gender: Male
Location: On my couch

Re: BA wins High Court ban on cabin crew strikes

Post by TrueBlueTerrier »

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Busine ... Injunction" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Unite union has won an appeal against a High Court injunction that blocked a mass strike by British Airways cabin crew.

A wave of five-day walkouts was due to start this week but BA was granted an injunction against the Unite union in a move welcomed by the airline's passengers.
The union lodged its appeal on Wednesday.

Today's decision means the strikes can go ahead, probably from next week.

Unite originally announced four five-day stoppages from May 18-22 inclusive, then from May 24-28, May 30-June 3 and June 5-9, the last strike ending just days before the start of the football World Cup in South Africa.

British Airways ran a full long-haul service from Heathrow on Wednesday as it waited for the court decision, saying its global operation started well.

Unite members are travelled in an open top double decker bus through the City of London shortly before the court decision was announced.

The union says it wanted to warn the airline's top investors that BA chief executive Willie Walsh is playing "fast and loose" with their money.

A cabin crew representative will deliver a letter from Unite's joint general secretaries urging the investors to use their influence to bring stability back to the airline.

Unite claimed Monday's High Court injunction called into question whether workers still had the right to take action.

The union said the injunction by Mr Justice McCombe was made because it had not told its members that 11 ballot papers in a recent online vote by cabin crew had been spoilt.

BA argued Unite had not "properly complied" with the requirement to "send everyone eligible to vote details of the exact breakdown of the ballot result" and that, as a result, the strike action was "unlawful".

Joint leader Tony Woodley said: "It brings into question whether we have a right to strike in this country, which is a fundamental human right."

Mr Woodley repeated that the original dispute had been agreed in principle, adding that BA had an "ideal opportunity" to settle the row despite the ongoing legal wrangle.

He accused the airline of being "incredibly petty and vindictive" by refusing to fully restore travel concessions to staff who joined a strike in March and over disciplinary action taken against more than 50 union members.

"This dispute can be resolved by returning our people's travel concessions and by not victimising decent men and women. That is not a difficult thing to do."
All post by me in Green are Admin Posts.
Any post in any other colour is my own responsibility.
If you like a news story I posted please click the link to show support Any news stories you can't post - PM me with a link
My sharing of news articles should not be interpreted as an endorsement or condemnation of any particular viewpoint or the issues presented. I share them solely for informational purposes.
andy2007
Posts: 3971
Joined: 14 Sep 2007, 10:16
Gender: Male
Location: Earth

Re: BA wins High Court ban on cabin crew strikes

Post by andy2007 »

That's fantastic news! Well done Unite! :Applause :Applause
Don't knock Insanity
it's just another outlook on Reality!
borders
Posts: 1303
Joined: 11 Sep 2007, 09:10

Re: BA wins High Court ban on cabin crew strikes

Post by borders »

good news, its a funny old game !!!
"why should it just be the bankers, politicians and the idle rich who get all the best things ? we demand a standard of living for our members that enables them to share in the fine wines and times that the likes of Cameron and his Eton buddies take for granted " - the late great Bob Crow RIP.
fishtank
Posts: 19732
Joined: 28 Sep 2007, 17:22
Gender: Male

Re: BA wins High Court ban on cabin crew strikes

Post by fishtank »

I look forward to "BA lodge appeal over unite winning appeal over BA winning High court ban on cabin crew strikes" :cuppa
good times, bad times you know I've had my share
andy2007
Posts: 3971
Joined: 14 Sep 2007, 10:16
Gender: Male
Location: Earth

Re: BA wins High Court ban on cabin crew strikes

Post by andy2007 »

I wouldn't put it past them to try! :evil/mad
Don't knock Insanity
it's just another outlook on Reality!
Spartacus
Posts: 533
Joined: 23 Jun 2007, 16:41
Location: Wales

Re: BA wins High Court ban on cabin crew strikes

Post by Spartacus »

Gerrit right up ye Walsh.
Delivery

Resistance is fertile
brothermagrew
Posts: 3015
Joined: 06 Aug 2007, 16:38
Gender: Male
Location: Shares a border with England to the south.

Re: BA wins High Court ban on cabin crew strikes

Post by brothermagrew »

Unite on court of appeal judgment
20th May 2010

The court of appeal has overturned an injunction against the cabin crew's strike over a technical breach.

Tony Woodley, Unite joint general secretary, said: "We are delighted to have won today. Justice has been secured. Had it not been, the right to strike would now be hanging by a thread.

"BA must now accept that negotiation not litigation is the only way to secure the settlement we all want. However, further strikes will be unavoidable if the company does not immediately work with us to address the outstanding issues.

"This is a pause for peace. Willie Walsh must make the most of it."

http://www.unitetheunion.com/news__even ... lang=en-gb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
BA Strike the Facts.pdf
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
"Today’s workplace has become heartless and soulless. Employees are seen as units of labour, automatons, functionaries, objects for achieving designated tasks, and as costs to be minimised."