A BATTLE FOR HIGH STAKES
By Gregor Gall
It seems like the ultimate kamikaze action: mutually assured destruction.
The company you work for is already in a huge amount of trouble, posting a £401m loss last year, a lot more this year, running a massive pension deficit and you decide to press the nuclear button by going on strike for 12 days at the busiest time of the year.
If you wanted to engineer the bankruptcy of your employer, put yourself on the dole early in the New Year and without much in the way of a redundancy deal, this seems to be the perfect way to do it. In a monopoly service this would not necessarily matter but we know passengers will choose another airline in order to get to their destination. And they won’t always come back either.
So the decision by 92% of those who voted “yes” for strike action on an 80% turnout is completely crazy, right?
Not exactly. Strong though it is, let’s set aside the moral argument of the workers against cutting costs because arguments on their own do not win industrial disputes. Only might makes right a truly potent force.
So what is the strike decision based on?
As a BA worker, you’d have to make a calculation that this action won’t sink your employer and that your action could make it retreat and settle on terms favourable to you. What’s the evidence for this calculation? There are two parts to this.
The first is that BA cannot – as a going concern and soon-to-be merged partner with Iberia – contemplate coming out the other side on January 3 2010 as a viable proposition with this much damage done to it. The logic here is that it’s better to compromise in the short-term even if this does not address the long-term problems. At least that way, you’re able to try to sort out the long-term problems by still being in the game.
The second is that the central political and economic importance of our de facto national flag carrier means that any government of any political complexion would not let BA crash into self-induced oblivion.
This means Unite has calculated that a 12-day strike will create such a political hot potato that the government will be forced to intervene to sort out the mess. Indeed, the calculation may be that the mere calling of the action will have this effect. So heads will be knocked together by an outside third party, Acas will be brought in and there will be a deal that everyone says they are pleased with. To boot, financial help may be doled out to give BA breathing space.
Yet is this all on a wing and a prayer?
We’ve had macho-management in the private sector before, making threats of “do or die”. Pretty much all of them buckled in one way or another under pressure, so this is fair gamble. The obvious one that did not was Rupert Murdoch at Wapping and that’s because he carefully engineered a dispute and, critically, set up an alternative production site. BA does not have this capacity. Indeed, one of the things it is trying to do is set up a low-cost, non-union operation. But that does not yet exist. In this situation, the major shareholders might tell BA’s chief executive, Willie Walsh, that it’s time to compromise.
So what about banking on the government to step in? The recent experience of the Communication Workers’ Union in the Royal Mail dispute does not bode well. It found it hard to get the government that solely owns Royal Mail to step in and back its position. But the sight of mass passenger chaos and queues at the country’s main airports in the event of a strike might just be enough to get the kind of intervention Unite seeks. Any party seeking election next year might want to show how it can smoothly deal with tricky situations as an advert for its management skills.
It’s certainly a poker game of very, very high stakes. Unite has rolled the dice and played its hand. We wait to see whether BA will call its bluff and raise the stakes or whether it will fold and retire for the night.
See Jerry Hick’s statement in support of BA strikers here
I was going to give this the title “alea iacta est”, but thought that was to pretentious even for me.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 December, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8417543.stm
‘An operation is under way to fly back to the UK thousands of people left stranded after Flyglobespan, Scotland’s biggest airline, collapsed.
All flights were cancelled after its parent company, Globespan, entered administration on Wednesday.
About 800 jobs are under threat and unions have expressed anger at the plight of employees.’
Comment by Anonymous — 17 December, 2009 @ 3:19 pm
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=19876
Video of Unite meeting where the BA vote for action was announced
The footage shows the several thousand strong Unite union meeting at Sandown Park where BA cabin crew workers heard the overwhelming result of their vote for strike action, Monday 14 December 2009
Comment by Anonymous — 17 December, 2009 @ 3:23 pm
Unfortunately it has been called off as one judge has declared it illegal and the spineless UNITE leaders caved in.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8418805.stm
Comment by paddy garcia — 17 December, 2009 @ 4:29 pm
Another capitulation by the union leadership in the face of New Labour’s judges. Pitiful cowards.
Comment by Rorschach — 17 December, 2009 @ 4:37 pm
They won’t have the bottle to break the anti union laws despite the strength of the mandate for action. Missed opportunity to have a strike at the best possible time to maximise disruption and break the BA management
Comment by paddy garcia — 17 December, 2009 @ 4:40 pm
I’ve mentioned this before but hasn’t anybody else noticed how Woodley caves in as quickly as possible whenever there’s an airport related dispute? A more cynical person than me would think he’s either on the payroll or the bosses have got something on him. Either way, he certainly delivers.
Comment by Doug — 17 December, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
#5 I don’t think you understand the full extent of the anti trade union laws.
The union could face sequestration and effectively be destroyed if they don’t follow the ruling.
The real scandal is that these laws are still on the statute book after more than a decade of a Labour government and, as I mentioned on another thread, show the real character of that government in terms of what socialists should be supporting or not.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 17 December, 2009 @ 4:47 pm
The usual Charge of the Light Brigade shit
An illegal strike would have lead to 2 things.
1st - the company would be able to sack lots of BA staff, with no redundancy. Almost certainly they would have gone after the union activists.
2nd - if the union had supported the illegal strike the unions assets would be seized declaring open season on all the other Unite workers.
The ground crews, the pilots and other BA staff are not going to back this strike and neither are other airport workers.
Comment by Ian Croft — 17 December, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
But don’t you think that the way this was done combined with the enormous mandate for strike action on a high turnout may well galvanise the BA and other workers to take unofficial and illegal action? This is possibly the best opportunity to do this that we have had for a very long tome and should be seriously considered.
Comment by paddy garcia — 17 December, 2009 @ 4:53 pm
#9 You must be a full time official? Do you think we should accept the imposition of cuts in pay and conditions and jobs whilst bankers discuss the injustice of a 50 per cent tax on the multi-million bonuses they are paying themselves out of the bail out money? I reckon you could find a reason not to fight back under virtually any circumstances. And what do you mean `if the union had supported the illegal strike’? There hasn’t been a strike yet.
Comment by Link — 17 December, 2009 @ 5:04 pm
The union laws will remain on the statute books until the union movement renders them redundant by smashing them - that could be a matter of days, months or decades in the current situation. Sequestration is only the end of the story if the union in question does not have an escalation strategy. In my view, the mood is currently such that if a union did openly defy the laws and sent out pickets in the face of any judicial threat to its funds, it would attract high levels of solidarity. Of course, such action is far more likely to be initiated by the rank and file than by any leadership, however left wing it may appear to be. In short, no rank and file movement = no defence against the employer/New Labour offensive. The options are fight or be fucked.
Comment by Rorschach — 17 December, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
Ian, this is an issue of one judge’s interpretation of civil law not a criminal trial, so to talk of “illegal” strikes is quite inappropriate.
A strike by BA workers under these circumstances would be “unofficial” not illegal and it would require a further hearing to determine what, if any, action should be taken.
And unofficial strikes do not automatically lead to mass sackings and the seizure of assets etc - there was a series of unofficial strikes earlier this year which led to victory.
Comment by Karl Stewart — 17 December, 2009 @ 5:14 pm
I thought it was a very measured article by Gregor Gall which highlighted some of the complexities and challenges of this dispute.
The real scandal in terms of todays legal announcement is that after 13 years of Labour in power Thatcher’s anti-trade union laws are still firmly on the statute book. The decision in the courts today highights the absurdity of the position taken by some genuine socialists who tie themselves up in knots explaining that working people should still be loyal to Labour.
Comment by Owen — 17 December, 2009 @ 5:46 pm
“10.But don’t you think that the way this was done combined with the enormous mandate for strike action on a high turnout may well galvanise the BA and other workers to take unofficial and illegal action?”
Paddy,
I can easily see the BA cabin crew wanting to take unofficial strike action but I’d advise them doing it on their own. They’ll be stamped on.
“This is possibly the best opportunity to do this that we have had for a very long tome and should be seriously considered.”
It is not a serious option unless all BA workers are prepared to back it. I don’t see evidence that they are. This is partly the trade unions fault for playing sectional games for decades.
Comment by Ian Croft — 17 December, 2009 @ 6:06 pm
“11.#9 You must be a full time official?”
Why must I be? and no I am not.
“Do you think we should accept the imposition of cuts in pay and conditions and jobs whilst bankers discuss the injustice of a 50 per cent tax on the multi-million bonuses they are paying themselves out of the bail out money?”
No and that not really a serious question is it?
“I reckon you could find a reason not to fight back under virtually any circumstances.”
There will always be reasons to strike and reasons not too. This is about strategy and tactics. An illegal walkout by BA cabin crew would be suicide.
“And what do you mean `if the union had supported the illegal strke’? There hasn’t been a strike yet.”
We where talking about a hypothetical illegal strike supported by the union. Of course we all know the first response of Unite would be to refuse to endorse a strike and denounce any unoffical strike.
Comment by Ian Croft — 17 December, 2009 @ 6:11 pm
“I was going to give this the title “alea iacta est”, but thought that was to pretentious even for me.”
Not at all, Andy.
Comment by Irenic — 17 December, 2009 @ 6:14 pm
“13.Ian, this is an issue of one judge’s interpretation of civil law not a criminal trial, so to talk of “illegal” strikes is quite inappropriate. A strike by BA workers under these circumstances would be “unofficial” not illegal and it would require a further hearing to determine what, if any, action should be taken.”
I thought an unofficial strike was one not officially supported by the union itself? As I understand it all unofficial strikes are automatically illegal. Unite could endorse the strike making it official but it would still be illegal. Although in this case it would be the breach of the injunction that would make the strike illegal, not the disputed nature of the ballot.
“And unofficial strikes do not automatically lead to mass sackings and the seizure of assets etc - there was a series of unofficial strikes earlier this year which led to victory.”
Well I never said automatically. BA is out to break the union. The moment you refuse to turn up to work and engage in an illegal strike you can be sacked. They haven’t before because the stakes where not high enough.
Comment by Ian Croft — 17 December, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
“In my view, the mood is currently such that if a union did openly defy the laws and sent out pickets in the face of any judicial threat to its funds, it would attract high levels of solidarity.”
From who?
Comment by Ian Croft — 17 December, 2009 @ 6:23 pm
Message 12: “In my view, the mood is currently such that if a union did openly defy the laws and sent out pickets in the face of any judicial threat to its funds, it would attract high levels of solidarity.”
We’re in the middle of a recession. My reading of the publics’ view of the proposed BA strikes was anti-strike. Yes, we trade union activists support the BA position; and, undoubtedly would take secondary action if we could.
But, how many are we? A few score thousands spread over all sectors. Rorschach, on what evidence do you base your contention that a threat of sequestration would galvanise ‘high levels of solidarity’? For my part, I don’t see British workers coming out in solidarity in any meaningful numbers.
A couple of years ago, outside of a recession, I was involved in a strike ballot at Remploy. On that occasion the factories in my Branch overwhelmingly voted against a strike ballot in a pre-ballot we held. On this evidence the TU Consortium decided not to hold the official ballot.
The factories that did come out, Birkenhead, Aintree and York, were well supported. However, nobody else came out in support of these doughty Remploy strikers.
Incidentally, I take no pleasure in my conclusions. I’d be on picket lines tomorrow supporting any action taken by BA or other workers. Sadly, in these dim times of recession I don’t see a movement towards secondary or any other mass solidarity gestures.
Comment by Irenic — 17 December, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
92% voted ‘YES’ to strike on an 80% turnout and some here are claiming that there is no evidence that defying the courts decision is a viable option.
I’d just like to ask Ian what odds does he want before workers challenge the anti-union laws? The magnificent solidarity for Visteon, Lindsey and other recent disputes contradicts his claim that workers mustn’t risk taking so-called “illegal” action.
There is still time before xmas for BA workers to stand up to BA bosses and the cuts. I hope they do it.
Comment by Ray — 17 December, 2009 @ 6:47 pm
#Message 21
Tsk, tsk, tsk, Ray. You’re being a bold boy, aren’t you; you’re twisting what others say to suit your weak argument. Nobody is denying the YES vote was a call to arms by BA. I questioned another poster claimed that should Unite, or any other union, defy a court injunction and proceed with supporting a strike there’s a strong likelihood they’d have their bank accounts sequestrated. His contention was if sequestration took place there would be an upsurge of support and solidarity from other trade unionists – I imagine so massive it would grind the country to a standstill.
Ray, how much secondary action was there for Lindsey or Visteon? Neither of these disputes was ever going to ignite the powder keg of revolution. To make out they were anything but small localised incidents is to delude yourself and indeed those who took part in the actions. Yes, they took illegal actions; however, their actions were not sanctioned by their union, so who exactly was the court to go after?
By the way, you speak of “so-called “illegal” action”. If you’re so confident the action is ‘so-called’, why do you feel the necessity to cover yourself by using inverted commas on the word ‘illegal’?
Comment by Irenic — 17 December, 2009 @ 7:05 pm
Of course ‘ian croft’ wanted the joke moderate candidate rob bryson to be pcs gs. I’ll leave him to cry into his cornflakes. Meanwhile if the ba cabin crew want to go for an unofficial, our job is to raise solidarity and spread the action as quickly as possible, not stand on the sidelines and sneer at workers fighting back against a disgraceful employer
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 17 December, 2009 @ 7:10 pm
Wow that judge’s opinion is horrible. Basically it comes down to the fact she doesn’t think striking over Christmas is a nice thing to do. I mean if she rules on a technicality, wouldn’t you at least expect her to stay away from pontificating on the issue itself? What a disgrace to the judiciary.
Comment by christian h. — 17 December, 2009 @ 7:11 pm
“I’d just like to ask Ian what odds does he want before workers challenge the anti-union laws?”
Good odds.
Comment by Ian Croft — 17 December, 2009 @ 7:13 pm
‘ian croft’, the lynsey strike won through ‘illegal’ secondary action. Do your homework next time
Comment by Keith Watermelon — 17 December, 2009 @ 7:14 pm
“23.Of course ‘ian croft’ wanted the joke moderate candidate rob bryson to be pcs gs.”
No I didn’t. Ian Croft is my actual name btw.
“Meanwhile if the ba cabin crew want to go for an unofficial, our job is to raise solidarity and spread the action as quickly as possible,”
and exactly how are “we” going to spread the action exactly?
“not stand on the sidelines and sneer at workers fighting back against a disgraceful employer”
I haven’t seen anyone sneering at them.
Comment by Ian Croft — 17 December, 2009 @ 7:17 pm
“26.‘ian croft’, the lynsey strike won through ‘illegal’ secondary action. Do your homework next time”
What are you going on about? I have not mentioned the Lindsey dispute at all.
Comment by Ian Croft — 17 December, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
Irenic - I concede that the evidence for my argument isn’t great. I am basing it on the straws in the wind we have seen in various smallish disputes throughout 2009, where militant action has delivered fairly decisive victories. Of course, one can read too much into that, but I think it is sufficient to say that while there is fear and despair, there is also anger, with the potential to be translated into struggle, dragging some of that fear and despair behind it. The only proof of my argument is in the pudding, so until it happens we won’t know what the balance of forces is.
But, one thing I think is clear. Without a fight, every group of workers will be slaughtered. It matters not one jot what ‘public opinion’ says (although it was firmly behind the posties), the only consequence of vacillation, compromise or inaction will be defeat. It matters not that common sense dictates that striking will cost the company money. Of course it will cost them money, but the jobs are going anyway. The eventual destruction of the coal industry wasn’t any worse because of the miners’ strike, the strike was the only thing that could have saved it, if the Tories been defeated.
Comment by Rorschach — 17 December, 2009 @ 7:19 pm
“The only proof of my argument is in the pudding, so until it happens we won’t know what the balance of forces is.”
and if the balance of forces turns out to be against you you’ve just led your men into a massacre. Remind me never to follow you into battle war.
Comment by Ian Croft — 17 December, 2009 @ 7:22 pm
oh dear…… tis the season for the looney ultra left.
For Paddy, Rorschach and the other armchair revolutionists can i ask you some questions?
How organised are your workplaces? How large are you work places? Are you elected shop stewards? Have you taken out your workplace on sustained unofficial action? Have you faced an aggressive employer who would just love the opportunity to lawfully sack staff who took unoffical action and bankqrupt the union too?
Talk is cheap and you do talk a lot of BS.
Yes the anti trade union laws are a joke and make it extremely difficult to pull off a large official strike. Does it need to be challenged and changed. The answer is bleeding obvious, but denoucing Union leaders for not publically declaring unofficiall action because they don’t want to bankqrupt a Union of 2 million members is just plane stupid.
Can the BA crew start unofficial action yes, is it risky, yes, would the Union have to repudiate it to stop being bankqrupted, yes, are there other ways to challenge the anti trade union law and still win the dispute, yes.
Will Paddy and Rorschach shut up and stop talking infantile drivel…… no, but that would be priceless!
Comment by doh! — 17 December, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
Ian - the ‘men’ are going to get massacred anyway. No question. Since you put it that way, the real issue is whether it is better to go down fighting, or simply to surrender. If the outcome is the same, surely it’s better to inflict a few blows on the enemy on the way down. But I don’t think that necessarily has to be the outcome for the reasons I suggest.
Comment by Rorschach — 17 December, 2009 @ 7:29 pm
Ian Croft is talking sense here.
This is a very difficult dispute here, becasue BA are genuinely losing money hand over fist (have you checked their prices recently, they are far from competitive on most European flights compared too other equivelent airlines like Lufthansa).
So this was already a highly political dispute that could only be won through government initervention.
Now if the staff decide to go ahead with unofficial action then UNITE have to repudiate it, (even if some help is quietly offered behind the scenes), but can the staff win an unofficial strike??
It is all very well demanding unofficial action, but in a sense the union and the workers have already acheived what they needed to achieve by pushing the issue of BA right up to the top of the political agenda.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 December, 2009 @ 7:36 pm
In my view the important point for everyone in Unite who DOESN’T stand to lose their job with no recourse to a tribunal or have their property sequestrated for backing unlawful action (ie the people competent to actually comment on the question of whether the union should back the action in spite of the injunction), is that this ruling was only possible because the party all those who pay the political levy in the union are funding has not, after 12 years in government, repealed Tebbit’s anti-union laws.
So Doh, who never had the basic courtesy to reply to my request that you answer your nasty allegations against me previously, what has the United Left got to say about why your candidate for GS wants to continue to pour our money down the toilet by funding New Labour?
Oh, and the United Left appears a little disunited on this thread in my humble opinion.
Comment by Armchair — 17 December, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
I don’t understand Karl Stewart downplaying the seriousness of today’s court ruling @15 above.
He writes;
“Ian, this is an issue of one judge’s interpretation of civil law not a criminal trial, so to talk of “illegal” strikes is quite inappropriate.”
That’s entirely the wrong tone to set.
Today’s court ruling is the full use of the anti trade union laws brought in by the Tories.
They are *laws*, the breaking of which are punishable by extremely severe measures including the bankrupting of individuals in positions in the union and the effective destruction of the union.
Karl continues;
“A strike by BA workers under these circumstances would be “unofficial” not illegal and it would require a further hearing to determine what, if any, action should be taken.”
Again, this is absolutely wrong.
A strike by union members in the period previously notified by the union, an action that would have to be organised by UNITE representatives on the ground, would, without doubt, lay the union wide open to being ripped apart by Willie Walsh and the Labour government (more of that later), because it is now illegal.
Karl says;
“And unofficial strikes do not automatically lead to mass sackings and the seizure of assets etc - there was a series of unofficial strikes earlier this year which led to victory.”
Unofficial action and illegal strikes are two entirely different things.
The Lyndsey strikes and the huge number of solidarity actions were all technically illegal but because nobody went to court and got an injunction it was a mute point.
That’s the difference here, BA have gone to court and made the strike illegal.
I don’t know what the response of the BA workers will be, perhaps a return of the mass phoning in sick and of course socialists will support any such action, but to demand that UNITE go nuclear and go ahead with specific industrial action that has now been made illegal is ultra leftism personified.
Comment by Eddie Truman — 17 December, 2009 @ 7:58 pm
Armchair, you appear to have an almost unhealthy interest in Unite’s United Left affairs. May I make a suggestion, in order to end your constant demands for information about our United Left, why don’t you join Unite? Once a member you’re more than welcome to join our United Left.
Until then, maybe you could just shut the fuck up about my United Left; you’re becoming a fucking bore, mate.
Comment by Irenic — 17 December, 2009 @ 8:00 pm
I see a disturbing pattern developing on this and some other threads:
1.Don’t take unofficial industrial action because judges, bosses and TU leaders may not like it.
2.Be nice to the BNP and their supporters, don’t call them racist, fascist scum because they may not like it.
3.Deny the true nature of the British military in the imperialist occupation of Afganistan because some military families and backward elements may get a bit upset.
Where will this end?
Comment by paddy garcia — 17 December, 2009 @ 8:01 pm
“1.Don’t take unofficial industrial action because judges, bosses and TU leaders may not like it.”
Don’t be silly. Those of us arguing against unofficial action are doing so because we think the chance of victory is small and the damage from defeat would be catastrophic.
Comment by Ian Croft — 17 December, 2009 @ 8:10 pm
Irenc - as you will have noticed if you read the previous threads about Jerry Hicks, I AM a member of Unite. And given that the United Left will be asking me along with other members to vote for your candidate for GS, I think I have a perfect right to ask the question as to why your candidate wants me to continue to help fund the Labour Party.
So instead of the insults (I notice that your mate Doh! has still not explained why I am dishonest), why not answer a perfectly reasonable political question?
If you want to do that, I am happy to enter into a discussion. If not, you know where you can go, along with all your mates.
Comment by Armchair — 17 December, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
Ah my dear Armchair its so good to hear from you.
Your addition on here has now completed the three unwise men tribute act and we can now witness some true naivety at play.
I’m so looking forward to more of your comedy gold and I’ll be frank if you make any sense.
Comment by doh! — 17 December, 2009 @ 8:19 pm
I mean it’s obvious that if cabin crew were to decide to go ahead and do some kind of action, everyone should stand in solidarity with them. But that’s not the same as actively calling for an illegal strike from the outside - that’s just posturing, not politics.
This is not to say the union must not be criticised, not only for failure to have these anti-union laws repealed through 12 years of Labour government (didn’t someone say on another thread one should vote Labour because they are subject to “pressure by the movement” or so) but it should also be asked how the it happened that the ballot went wrong - it can’t be the frist time a union is balloting under these laws.
Comment by christian h. — 17 December, 2009 @ 8:23 pm
Paddy on post #31 I asked you a series of relevant questions that you have yet unanswered.
If you had any shred of credibilty you would do so.
Where will it all end? …… well in your universe some ultra leftist nivana, but it will be a pretty weird and lonely place with only a handful of you allowed in. But i also bet there would be a sectarian split within hours. The bloody sell out traitors!
Meanwhile i hope the BASSA members regroup, fight back and defeat the psycho that is Willie Walsh and his management team at BA.
Comment by doh! — 17 December, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
“it should also be asked how the it happened that the ballot went wrong - it can’t be the frist time a union is balloting under these laws.”
It’s not so much that, it’s that management is more aggressively using, and winning when using, anti-union laws.
What we’re seeing is the erosion of the right to strike through a ballot. Bosses have recently realised that they can squeeze much more out of the law.
The RMT has been threatened with legal action a number of times over the precise information it gives the employer during ballots. One recent legal challenge was over the fact that, for example, employees at “Baker Street” might use two entrances, and can actually officially work at “Marylebone Road” or “Baker Street”, but because the union only said “Baker Street” management won against us.
Management knew exactly which employees were working where, but they have gained a lot of confidence in squeezing the laws. In BA’s case, it was over issues such as employees likely to be leaving by the time action was called. There is no way a union can ever have a legal ballot if you can only ballot workers who have not handed in their notice - no union can expect its members to tell it as soon as they’ve decided to quit.
The RMT also lost a court case a few weeks back in which London Underground claimed they wanted even more information. There were only a few dozen workers, all in one contractor and doing one type of job, balloted, yet London Underground argued that the RMT had to provide precise details of aspects of the members’ grades, not just their name and work location. This legal victory has in turn made employers push even harder in court.
So, yes, unions’ records need to be better. But that’s 1% of the issue here. The real issue is that the courts are narrowing even the legal basis for a democratic ballot much further than has ever been done before.
Comment by tony collins — 17 December, 2009 @ 8:32 pm
It appears that the union didn’t know which members had taken voluntary redundancy. This was complicated by the fact that the redundancies occured half-way into the balloting period.
The union asked BA and BA told them to get lost. I’d have thought that alone would be grounds for the Judge to throw the injunction request out of court.
I’m at a loss to see how this could possibly be the unions fault.
Comment by Ian Croft — 17 December, 2009 @ 8:33 pm
Thanks Tony, that’s just disgusting. I see that (especially with judges like this one obviously sympathetic to the employer) there’s almost no way to have a water-proof ballot then.
Comment by christian h. — 17 December, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
Well Doh!, you haven’t been “frank” enough to explain why you think I am dishonest. It’s not too late.
Let me clarify what I said above:
1) I am not in favour of people who will not be affected by the consequences ponitifcating on the rights and wrongs of the union abiding by the injunction. THerefore I am not having a go at the union leadership.
2) This injunction was possible because the Labour government has not repealed the anti-union laws. Our union and most others continues to fund the Labour Party. The United Left candidate for GS wants our Union to continue to fund the Labour Party.
Comments welcome.
Comment by Armchair — 17 December, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
#43 I should have said I’m not having a go at the union leadership specifically on the question of unlawful action in this case.
Comment by Armchair — 17 December, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
Christian - it honestly is looking very bleak regarding the law. Which opens up possibilities for more unofficial action if workers start to get fucked off with not being able to strike: We’ll have to see where the mood goes over the coming year. Bosses will have to be careful not to push too far, or they risk unleashing a wave of unofficial action cos workers will see that there’s no point in waiting for a ballot anymore if every ballot is challenged.
An upside is that the RMT’s lawyers are fairly confident of an eventual overturning of the verdict, but not til it reaches the European Court. God knows when that will be.
Comment by tony collins — 17 December, 2009 @ 8:46 pm
Tony thanks for adding some useful perspective on here.
I agree employers are getting more and more bold (as they keep winning injunctions on spurious grounds from their ruling CLASS mates in the judiciary) in challenging strike ballots as Unite bus drivers have found out earlier this year.
It is becoming a joke and its getting close to the stage where having an official legal strike will become impossible.
There is not one simple or easy solutions but this situation must not go unchallenged.
Comment by doh! — 17 December, 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Fair enough doh!
Am an NUJ member I work freelance in the media industry, one of the most precarious and low paid industries there is thanks to our unions being smashed.
Had a few jobs with The Sunday Times before Murdoch, don’t think employers come much harder. Turned down work after for obvious reasons, which as a young freelance starting wasn’t a great career move but was the right thing to do. So please don’t lecture me on TU principles.
As I don’t have a fixed workplace your questions are not of much relevance these days apart from if my and other unions are in dispute I don’t supply work to those publications/organisations who they are in dispute with and offer colleagues whatever support and solidarity I can.
Comment by paddy garcia — 17 December, 2009 @ 8:49 pm
My gut reaction is anger for the judge’s decision who showed her clear class bias by commenting how unfair this strike at this time would hit BA hardest. (It’s like asking teachers in England only to strike in August).
However, that doesn’t mean that there is only one possible response - namely walk-out anyway and defy the law, and of course solidarity will be instantaneous.There is this belief with some that there will be a spontaneous walkout and that workers who voted on the basis that they thought they were in the law, are going to take action anyway. If only.
Sorry to refer to very basic objective criteria, but the relationship between the classes isn’t that favourable in Britain and in terms of the planed strike, the anti-union laws have seen us beaten. Whether BA will make concessions to avoid a ‘properly conducted ballot’ followed by strike action - which would be endorsed - remains to be seen.
Yes the action now would have really have put our great rulers on the defensive. However, they are not stupid and didn’t establish a legal system and culture in order to keep the working class in their place without the intention of using it.
TRhat’s not to say workers in some places won’t walk out as they have defying the law, but it’s wishful thinking that the BA cabin crews on a national level would do so.
Comment by Howard T — 17 December, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
Just wait for the Tories to get in. Some of them talking about passing laws that say strike action can only occur if a majority of members vote for it (not a majority of those who voted).
Then there is the even more extreme version of saying a strike can only occur if a majority of the workforce vote for it. In effect it counts everyone who didn’t vote and isn’t a member as voting no on any strike ballot.
It will kill most of the trade union movement stone dead in one blow.
Comment by Ian Croft — 17 December, 2009 @ 9:07 pm
STOP THE PRESS!!!!!!!!!
ARMCHAIR SHOCKER!! HE DOESN’T HAVE A GO AT THE UNION LEADERHIP!
Christmas has arrived early.
Comment by doh! — 17 December, 2009 @ 9:20 pm
Christian h’s question is a good one: ““it should also be asked how the it happened that the ballot went wrong - it can’t be the frist time a union is balloting under these laws.””
and in practice, it is almost impossible to conduct a ballot legally.
in general the approach has been to try to intimidate employers away from making such dubious legal challenges to the ballot, even if at the basic level of arguing that thwarting the democraticly expressed wish of the workforce for a strike is not conducive to future good industrial relations.
While it is true that the government has failed in 12 years to repeal or revise the law in the unions favour, it is also true that it is many a long year since the big unions have seriously made that demand on the Labour party.
there is a subtext here, that many people within the unions themselves have bought the argument that strikes are an electoral liability, and not only union officials, this is an argument at all levels in the unions.
What has been lacking has been a concerted campign in favour of restoring trade unions rights, and sadly too often the so-called organised lefts within the unions have been more interested in horse trading about which candidates to support in elections rather than campaigning to promote pro trade unions, pro working class policies.
Comment by Andy Newman — 17 December, 2009 @ 9:43 pm
This High Court decision represents a monumental defeat for BA workers. The stuffing will have been knocked out of their previous confidence at the time of the announcement of the ballot result on Tuesday. The union leadership were aware of the problems with the ballot in advance. They should have made sure that this situation could never have happen. Len McCluskey cynically went ahead with the press conference knowing full well that the legal challenge from BA would prevent a legal strike taking place. The only conclusion to draw is that he was playing to the gallery to promote his candidature as General Secretary. Why else would he have taken over the negotiations and press conference from Brian Boyd, the National Officer for Civil Air Transport?
The whole of the Unite leadership, including the lay Executive, bear collective responsibility for this colossal failure. The Unite database is in an appalling state. In the past, in predecessor union’s, quarterly card checks were conducted by shop stewards to ensure membership subs and details were kept up-to-date. This practise has been long abandoned as check off kept the subs rolling in with no interest from the leadership in keeping the member’s connection with the union. Most members don’t even know who there National Officer is, which branch they are in, who the branch secretary is or where and when it meets. This information is simply not given to the members by the leadership. Assistant General Secretary McCluskey has done nothing to alter this state of affairs.
Unite has failed to mount any challenge to the Tory anti-union laws. They have failed to apply pressure to the Labour government to remove these laws. Now, through there incompetence, by failing to maintain an up-to-date membership database, they have helped the BA bosses to defeat its workforce.
It is time for a change of leadership.
Comment by Anonymous — 17 December, 2009 @ 11:53 pm
What is also sickening is that trade unionists continue to fund an anti-trade union party. Talk about a waste of trade union funds!
Comment by Owen — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:01 am
Doh!- So you have no intention whatsoever of either justifying why you accused me of dishonesty or of explaining why Unite members should vote for a candidate for GS who is committed to continuing to pay money to the Party which has while in power refused to repeal the very laws that have been used to stop this strike.
Your pathetic and ignorant sarcasm is the best and most telling answer you can give.
Comment by Armchair — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:14 am
Let’s face the fact of the pernicious anti-trade union laws.
But also that ‘Mrs Justice Cox’ has a truly horrible past, in terms of advancing her own position, and those around her etc.
Hope you are proud of yourself Laura.
To Hell with ordinary folk eh?
S
Comment by simonh — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:16 am
Horrific judicial intervention which should show people that the British government is staggering drunkenly towards totalitarianism.
But we have to weigh this up properly. If the BA workers went out “unofficially” over Xmas would that lead to British revolution to socialism? I think not.
Would it lead to the union being sequestrated and broken by Nu-Labour - seeing as Unite effectively funds and runs the majority of the Labour party in the run up to a general election? I think not.
Ultimately, no-one would win from this one because the problem comes back to the economics.
BA flights are insanely priced. We’re in a global economy now, like it or not, and anyone in Britain who wants to travel on any sort of budget (most people) don’t go with BA. They are paid a half-decent wage by British standards - but by the standards of Brazilian or Indian or Chinese airlines, it is a hell of a lot more - spurious and bullshit arguments on “productivity” aside.
Strike or no strike, boycott or no boycott, BA will inevitably go under in years to come and passengers in this country will pay to go with the cheaper foreign airlines instead. End of.
Slag off union leaderships as much as you want and blame full-timers etc… But the BA workers would never have “won” unless the rest of the global airline industry were involved as well.
We shouldn’t stop defending workers engaging in struggle, but lets be realistic…the bigger question is how we organise across borders to up the fight on a worldwide scale. The lesson of this mess is surely that organising globally is the only game we should be playing.
Comment by Lawrence Shaw — 18 December, 2009 @ 1:14 am
“I don’t know what the response of the BA workers will be, perhaps a return of the mass phoning in sick and of course socialists will support any such action, but to demand that UNITE go nuclear and go ahead with specific industrial action that has now been made illegal is ultra leftism personified.”
What utter rubbish. No one is demanding Unite go nuclear. What we are arguing is for the Unite leadership to support BA workers who have voted overwhelmingly to go out on strike.
Tony Collins is right to point out that there is never a watertight union ballot. The government is determined to help employers stop strikes and no matter what Unite do the courts will find a way to declare a strike illegal.
The choice is to do nothing and watch jobs and wages savagely cut or to go on strike now. It’s as severe and as desperate as that. The height of folly is to wait for some imaginary future ballot when BA bosses have had months to undermine workers confidence and recruit scab labour.
Let’s deal with the issue of unofficial action. We’ve seen a large unofficial strike by Lyndsey workers (that Ian, doh! and Irenic are trying to play down) followed by a number of smaller unofficial strikes. In most cases employers have refused to negotiate initially but have eventually backed down. In this climate of renewed confidence that is why over 80% of BA workers voted and 92% of those chose strike action. To deny them this is a serious tactical error on the part of the TU leadership and will undermine any hope of saving jobs in the future. New Labour can’t risk sequestrating union funds. It’s very survival is dependent on union contributions.
Irenic, doh! and Ian are a disgrace to Unite and the left and should be backing a mandated strike not trying to undermine it.
Comment by Ray — 18 December, 2009 @ 1:20 am
‘but lets be realistic…the bigger question is how we organise across borders to up the fight on a worldwide scale. The lesson of this mess is surely that organising globally is the only game we should be playing’.
This sounds very well in theory but in practice I’m not sure you will get worldwide solidarity when you struggle to get it between workers in this country. What is needed is a nationalisation of the airline industry and the protection by government of domestic markets in relation to air travel.
Comment by Owen — 18 December, 2009 @ 1:33 am
“Would it lead to the union being sequestrated and broken by Nu-Labour - seeing as Unite effectively funds and runs the majority of the Labour party in the run up to a general election? I think not.”
Completely agree with you here.
“But we have to weigh this up properly. If the BA workers went out “unofficially” over Xmas would that lead to British revolution to socialism? I think not.”
Yes, because this isn’t about fighting to save jobs and wages but all about organising a revolution. I think not.
“Slag off union leaderships as much as you want and blame full-timers etc… But the BA workers would never have “won” unless the rest of the global airline industry were involved as well.”
So let’s just give up and wait until the workers of the world unite in one big strike? I think not.
“BA flights are insanely priced. We’re in a global economy now, like it or not, and anyone in Britain who wants to travel on any sort of budget (most people) don’t go with BA. They are paid a half-decent wage by British standards - but by the standards of Brazilian or Indian or Chinese airlines, it is a hell of a lot more - spurious and bullshit arguments on “productivity” aside.”
Allow wages to be cut to the lowest common denominator and then we’ll have the moral high ground? I think not.
Comment by Ray — 18 December, 2009 @ 1:35 am
From Socialist Worker:
http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=19878
Comment by Ray — 18 December, 2009 @ 1:54 am
“Unite has failed to mount any challenge to the Tory anti-union laws. They have failed to apply pressure to the Labour government to remove these laws. Now, through there incompetence, by failing to maintain an up-to-date membership database, they have helped the BA bosses to defeat its workforce.
It is time for a change of leadership.”
While I agree that there should be more accountability of the leadership to the Unite membership the issue of a so-called “illegal” ballot is a red herring. Labour and BA bosses were looking for any excuse to stop the strike. And so are Unites leadership. There is nothing to prevent the Unite leadership leading BA workers on strike except cowardice.
There is no way Labour will dare sequestrate the funds of one of its biggest donors. If the government tries to use the police to stop the strike this will only feed into the sympathy many workers have for those who are facing job losses and wage cuts.
Comment by Ray — 18 December, 2009 @ 2:08 am
#61 - so British passengers would have to book with BA or pay a premium to go on other airlines - thus pricing most low-paid people out of travelling?
#62 - All I am saying is widen it out to win more. I’m not saying get every single air cabin crew member from across the world to come out, but try to line up the larger airlines that come mostly to the UK, or Europe even.
The biggest problem with this dispute is the narrowness of it. I’ve not worked in cabin crews, but several family members of mine do - and not for BA. They are paid shit, and generally regard the BA crews as well-off rather than as comrades in arms. The idea that UK cabin crews are some kind of new, pure, class-conscious revolutionary vanguard is hugely mistaken.
My reading of this is that all the air crews globally don’t mix it up together - simply by the very nature of their work of constant travel and the conditions they work under. Organising and setting up communication proactively across borders and employers by the unions is the only way this larger race to the bottom can be arrested - that is something the leadership of Unite should be held to account on and pushed for by genuine socialists.
This is exactly why private sector unions in this country have been losing ground - we cannot fight within national borders because the bosses don’t. So we have to adapt to their rules and stop seeing things through the prism of “UK”.
And if the members do choose to strike, I would support them every step. But all I am saying that is if they do strike, I don’t think other workers within the UK will be flooding out after them in this instance, so lets not go mental about it being some kind of missed opportunity to change the world.
Comment by Lawrence Shaw — 18 December, 2009 @ 2:16 am
But they COULD fight and win in this dispute. Its a mistake to set the bar so high that what workers do in he here and now is meaningless. I’m also unclear who (if anyone) is talking about a ‘new vanguard’. If arguments are being made by those in other airlines that BA employee’s are privilaged and shouldn’t be supported socialists need to present arguments against such a position.
Comment by johng — 18 December, 2009 @ 2:19 am
Especially as the pull between anger and fear is likely to be intense in the current situation. We always face arguments about sections of workers on strike being greedy or selfish. Employers have an interest in pushing these arguments.
Comment by johng — 18 December, 2009 @ 2:21 am
Hmm, this discussion is certainly clarifying some stuff for me. I would have to believe that Lawrence and Ray are correct to point out that the Labour government would more than likely not dare destroy one of the biggest union in the UK. So one would have to think the onus is on the UNITE leadership to provide, you know, leadership.
To address issues that have been brought up regarding BA prices, or not being competitive etc., I warn against quick conclusions. First off, all the airlines are currently in trouble. They are all trying to use this recession to screw workers. As I understand it, BA workers have already agreed to temporary concessions; what management seems to be trying is to use the recession - a temporary problem - to push through permanent concessions. Sadly, a familiar sight. As for BA’s pricing, inner-European flights are expensive because they are rarely sold separately. Most of them are sold as legs of international flights. And BA transatlantic flights, for example, are no more expensive than other big carriers (not when booked from the US anyway). Most of BA’s profits have long come on the route London-New York which has been particularly hard hit be this current financial industry driven recession. Again, that’s no reason to accept permanent worsening of pay and conditions.
Comment by christian h. — 18 December, 2009 @ 2:22 am
#66 - agree entirely with everything you say.
But tactically, this could also be devastating for Unite and the wider movement. I just don’t see the wider support there for this action as things stand, even disregarding the huge media distortion.
Comment by Lawrence Shaw — 18 December, 2009 @ 2:23 am
I’m not at all sure Lawrence. Something similar was said about Postal workers. The media did everything possible to present these people as evil bastards ruining christmas for little children everywhere. The public just didn’t buy it. In the main they blamed the management (I remember a particularly ludicrous BBC news report where the lead in was about the publics lack of support for the strike whilst it seemed in the interviews with the public they couldn’t find anyone who didn’t blame the management). At a certain point unions are going to have to bite the bullet on this. They’re coming for us. They’re not going to go away because we appear reasonable. There will be battles. We have to be ready to fight them. Not fighting them means we lose.
Comment by johng — 18 December, 2009 @ 2:46 am
Concerning the lack of BA’s competitiveness there is no way that BA or many of the other airlines will ever compete with Ryanair.
I don’t know if anyone saw the Panorama program about Ryanair tactics but essentially they brow beat aircraft manufacturers, local airports and their own staff to achieve rock bottom prices. They think nothing of pulling out of one airport and setting up in another if they can negotiate a lower price. They are attempting to change the down time pilots are officially allowed in order to squeeze in more flights. We are talking about one of the most ruthless and undercutting airlines in the world. There is no way BA can ever compete with this unless it slashes staff and wages.
Instead of accepting the rock bottom values of Ryanair as the benchmark for pay and conditions we need to emphasize how dangerous the battle over ever decreasing profit margins are for staff and travellers.
Comment by Ray — 18 December, 2009 @ 5:17 am
#68 “As for BA’s pricing, inner-European flights are expensive because they are rarely sold separately. Most of them are sold as legs of international flights. ”
I have to challenge this.
I regularly fly with work between European destinations, and it is both clear from overhearing other passengers talking, and from observing whether they go to join connecting flights on landing or leave via passport control that the majority of European short haul flights are making journeys within Europe, with a high proportion of business travellers.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 8:24 am
#71
“Concerning the lack of BA’s competitiveness there is no way that BA or many of the other airlines will ever compete with Ryanair.”
True, but Ryanair effectively do not compete in the business carrier market. In my experience BA are systematically more expensive than their direct competetion, for example Lufthansa or Air France.
Of course there are advantages of going BA, like flying from termnal 5, and you do just get used to their way of doing things, and i like the service and the cabin crew are brilliant. But they have become expensive, so that a lot of corporate custiomers are switching, my own employer has just negotiated a switch to BMI.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 8:27 am
#60
“Let’s deal with the issue of unofficial action. We’ve seen a large unofficial strike by Lyndsey workers (that Ian, doh! and Irenic are trying to play down) followed by a number of smaller unofficial strikes. In most cases employers have refused to negotiate initially but have eventually backed down. In this climate of renewed confidence that is why over 80% of BA workers voted and 92% of those chose strike action.”
there is no comparison.
The action at the construction sites was a walk out, and the bosses never went to court; so GMb and UNITE didn’t face the problem.
The construction industry bosses did indeed try to make life difficcult for the unions in the subsequent ballot, as i exclusivly reported here publishing an internal employers memo to the efffect that the employers were withdrawing cooperation with the unions on who was workign where, etc, etc.
But for all ray’s talk of increased militancy, he is silent over the fact that when the national balot was actually conducted, the workforce voted to accept an improved national offer, not to reject it and strike.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 8:33 am
Unbeleievable sillyness in these comments:
““Would it lead to the union being sequestrated and broken by Nu-Labour - seeing as Unite effectively funds and runs the majority of the Labour party in the run up to a general election? I think not.””
“New Labour can’t risk sequestrating union funds. It’s very survival is dependent on union contributions.”
“There is no way Labour will dare sequestrate the funds of one of its biggest donors.”
It is depressng how little people understand of how the world works. the courts are independent of the government, and while informal pressure may be brought to bear, currently the establishment are minded to get rid of labour.
In any event, the courts would have little discretion if UNITE backed a national strike in defiance of an injunction, as it would be so clearly outside the law. the result would be sequestration of the union’s funds.
the fact that this caused consernation for the government and the labour party would be seen as an added bonus by most judges.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 9:26 am
Andy sorry but your implication in comments that management is correct that BA cost structure (meaning for them, employee compensation) makes them non-competitive is simply nonsense. Every damn airline claims the same, including obviously Lufthansa (who have had their own labor disputes this past year). And it is a fact that BA’s profits have always come from their transatlantic routes.
I cannot believe that a socialist is actually publicly defending the typical management lies in a labor dispute.
Comment by christian h. — 18 December, 2009 @ 10:37 am
#77
I don’t know exactly WHY BA are non-competitive; but they simply ARE more expensive for most short haul destinations. That isn’t a lie, it is a fact; and you can verify it by using price comparison sites to check. It certainly isn’t the workforces fault, nor are they over-compensated. But it is the context against which the dispute is happening.
The point being that BA are genuinely in trouble, and are losing money hand over fist. Over £400 loss last year, with losses expected to be higher this year.
As such, any dispute with BA has to recognise that the only likely way that management are going to concede is if the government steps in to save the prestige of the national flag carrier.
Now as trade unionists we need to understand the context we are operating in, and BA’s management have been appalling bullies; but nevertheless BA are in genuine trouble.
We also have to understand the viewpoint of our adverseraies, in order to see what sort of settlement is possible. Now if BA don’t have the wherewithall to settle, then additional money must either come from the government or from which ever other airline they hope to merge with.
It seems to me likely that UNITE never thought that the strikes would happen, and called for 12 days over Xmas as a deliberate headline grabber to push the issue up the political agenda, and get people talking about it. .It is even posssible that if UNITE had faced BA with a rolling series of one day strukes then BA might not have gone to the courts, ans they could have jiggled around and offered customers alternative flights, etc.
Whether such a strategy pays off depends upon what happens next. Arguably, they have drawn attention to the dire state of BA, the plight of the staff, and pressurised the government to find a solution just by calling the 12 days action in the first place.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 10:54 am
#77
“I cannot believe that a socialist is actually publicly defending the typical management lies in a labor dispute.”
This is a bit rich by the way from a sympathiser of the British SWP, whose national secretary Martin Smith preferred to believe and publiscise management lies that Italian workers at Lyndsey were paid the same as the British workforce, relying upon an ACAS report that never checked the Italians’ wages, and relied upon managemtents’ assertions.
Both the grassroots workers and GMB and UNITE disputed the management claim, and this was proven correct.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 10:57 am
Yawn. The old obsession again. Are you actually physically capable of going a day without slagging off the SWP, Andy? I challenge you to try.
Comment by christian h. — 18 December, 2009 @ 11:22 am
I go away for a few hours and look what happens …. Ray SWPer?, takes up the baton for the looney ultra left……. thankfully some sanity from his infantile drivel was restored by Andy Newman.
Ray where have i ever and i mean ever played down the Lyndsey dispute? That’s right i never have you cretin! In fact i was very supportive of the various wild cat disputes this year whilst and if i remember some of the ultra left including the SWP stood on the sidelines as they thought the workers were ‘revolting’ and weren’t ideologically pure of ultra left thought. It has been said that Unite (which i can’t confirm or deny) gave lots of support and resources for these disputes behind the scences to avoid being sued.
You have also got no idea about trade union legislation, the judiciary and the government operates. I SHALL SAY THIS VERY SLOWLY SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND. Government makes and enacts laws and the judiciary interprets and applies the law. These executive powers are seperate.
So Ray statements that Nu Labour would not sequestrate Unite is just plane stupid as it would be the judiciary that would do so and if if Mrs Justice Laura Cox is anything to go by, quite happily do it.
If Unite publically calls for unofficial and there for illegal strike action then it risks bankqrupting the Union and leaving two million members with no support. Now that would be pure folly and only an idiot would propose and do that. So Ray are you that idiot?
BA cabin crew may do some kind of unofficial action but that is up to them, BASSA who make up the majority of members are militant and well organised, (they have their own floor at Unite’s new Heathrow office and independently employ their own admin staff)lay member led and they call the shots so any tactical decisions will be up to them.
Comment by doh! — 18 December, 2009 @ 11:29 am
#80 NO - you are the one who said that socialists shoud not repeat management lies in a dispute.
I hadn’t done that, but Martin Smith actually did repeat management lies, that Italian workers at Lyndsey were paid the same as the british workforce. And in particular he preferred to believe the ACAS report in preference too what the GMB and UNITE and the greassroots activists were saying
It is entirely reasonable to point out a contradiction in your politics, that you fail to criticise SWP members for doing things that you would criticise others for doing.
If you think it is “obsessive” to hold a political organisation to account when it makes mistakes,, then perhaps politics isn’t the right choice for you.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 11:29 am
The problem some commentators have is that they don’t see how vital the question of the anti-union laws is. In some cases this is due to a semi-anarchist attitude to the law in general which is simply not shared by the overwhelming majority of working-class people.
It’s a material fact that the laws frequently prevent action from taking place, and that the unions frequently have to jump through hoops to ensure that action is lawful- this is an example of how difficult it is to fail to get through one of those hoops, whether through negligence, as suggested by some commentators or not I’m not in a position to say.
They also provide a potential excuse to those union officials who may wish to head off industrial action in given situations (again, I make no comment on the dispute under discussion here).
Unofficial action can be effective, and sometimes an absolute necesssity- I have experience of this at first hand, having participated in it-, but for people to offer encouragement from the sidelines to other people who potentially face the devastating consequences of defying the courts in these circumstances is irresponsible in my opinion. Were they to do so of course, they would deserve full support, that goes without saying hopefully.
The anti-union laws are a political issue, and the failure of the Labour Party to adopt a policy of repeal is central to the question of the relationship between the unions and the Labour Party. For that reason it simply is not sufficient for unions to adopt a policy of repeal, as laws are made by politicians (that’s the case whether they are members of a bourgeois parliament or deputies in some workers’ soviet of the future.)
If the political organisation that the union is funding has a policy of maintaining the law, then it must either change that policy or the union should cease, or at least severely restrict, that funding. I make a self-criticism here as I downplayed this myself on a previous thread on this blog.
Comment by Armchair — 18 December, 2009 @ 11:32 am
#81
Indeed Doh!
Both GMB and UNITE officials did very well in the context of the Lyndsey disputes.
And back in June Paul Kenny went as far as making a speech to the strikers at Lyndsey saying that GMB cinsidered it an official dispute, despite the fact they had walked out without a ballot.
http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=4269
the difference was that the workforce had seized the initiative, and management were reluctant to pour petrol on the flames by using the courts, especially as losing profits and liquidated damages meant that the bosses were very keen to get back to work.
The BA workforce have not taken unoffical action, if that happens then we will deal with that sitation as it comes up. UNITE must repudiate it, but i am sure that “good will” would still be extended by UNITE officers behind the scenes.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 11:37 am
#83
“The anti-union laws are a political issue, and the failure of the Labour Party to adopt a policy of repeal is central to the question of the relationship between the unions and the Labour Party. For that reason it simply is not sufficient for unions to adopt a policy of repeal, as laws are made by politicians (that’s the case whether they are members of a bourgeois parliament or deputies in some workers’ soviet of the future.) ”
That is very treu Armchair, but it is also true that the Labour government are not going to give things that the unions don’t insist upon; and sometimes over the last 12 years the big four ( now three) unions should have lft a horses head in Tony Blair’s bed, with a note on its saying that they wanted legal reform in this area. there has been a failure by the trad euni0on movement as well as from the Labour Party, and this failure has extended from left to right amd from general secretarys to shop stewards - we simply haven’t pushed this issue hard enough, and may live to rue the day.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 11:40 am
Andy (82.) you really do lack even the most rudimentary self awareness. That you can seriously write this nonsense without blushing (well I’m speculating as I can’t see you) is astounding. You are not “holding political organizations to account” for mistakes. You are virtually always holding exactly one organization to account for alleged mistakes. That’s what makes you obsessed. And you did defend management lies in this dispute. Which you then tried to cover up for by bringing up something someone (not me btw) said about a different dispute. Sad.
Comment by christian h. — 18 December, 2009 @ 11:41 am
#86
“And you did defend management lies in this dispute.”
what lies?
that BA are unprofatble? that is a fact.
that BA are in real trouble? that is a fact.
that BA flights are uncompetitivy priced on short haul? that is a fact.
“You are virtually always holding exactly one organization to account for alleged mistakes. ”
No, I have been extremely critical of, for example the CPB and SP supporting a NO2EU candidate in the NW euro constituency; I have been consistently critical of Socialist resistance for the role they played during the winding down of the Socialist Alliance, and their general ultra-leftism in Respect; and I am utterly scornful of groups like Permmanatnt Revolution and the AWL. i have been critical of the CPB’s position on Scottish independence, etc, etc
It is just that you only notice when it is about the SWP
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 11:47 am
Of course we must not downplay the seriousness of the BA court ruling - it’s clearly an extremely serious judgement - but we do need to emphasise the need to differentiate clearly between criminal and civil law here.
Basically, we must resist attempts by the anti-union media, corporations, politicians etc to try to drum into workers the concept that there is something “illegal,” illegitimate or somehow simply morally wrong about strike action.
A civil ruling such as this one is on a level of moral equivalence to a ruling over an alleged debt, a contractual row between companies or a boundary dispute between property owners and use of the word “illegal” in this context is not only inappropriate and simply wrong, it also plays into the hands of those who would delegitimise trade unionism itself.
There is no criminal act by the union here, or even any allegation of one, it is an interpretation by a judge, responding to a complaint citing civil law over the conduct of one specific industrial action ballot.
Whether or not BA workers should or should not take unofficial industrial action against BA’s imposition of worsening terms and conditions of employment is a matter for them to decide. I’ve certainly not expressed a view on that and it would be wrong for those of us outside of this workforce to do so.
But what has been said is that unofficial action can succeed, that it does not always fail and that unofficial action does not always lead to civil lawsuits.
Civil law is passive and criminal law is active. Unless a formal civil action is launched, then there is no active legal process.
Comment by Anonymous — 18 December, 2009 @ 11:58 am
that BA are unprofatble? that is a fact.
They have made huge profits over most of the past ten years, and are sitting on decent reserves.
Not to deny that there are concerns, but a lot of it is scaremongering.
Comment by Rory — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:00 pm
My comment from the Hicks thread is relevant here too:
Ray says: ‘It’s crucial that Unite defies this court order and leads its members out on strike.’
I say: Not this bloody stupid argument again, please. It’s easy to talk tough when you’re not in the eye of the storm, isn’t it?
As for ‘the Unite leadership are probably breathing a sigh of relief’ - well I’ve seen no evidence of this. The mistakes in the ballot were a genuine fuck up, for sure, but in a context where it is increasingly difficult to ballot at all. Thatcher didn’t bring in the anti-union laws for the hell of it: it was to deliver results for capital of the kind we all saw yesterday.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:06 pm
#88 Interesting point. But in my experience of having practiced housing law, when an injunction comes into effect, breach of the injunction is a contempt of court, which automatically triggers legal sanctions, including imprisonment. Breach of a family law injunction, although the injunction itself is a civil remedy, becomes a criminal offence.
So what is the position with this injunction? Surely the injunction itself creates the trigger for the law to be “active”?
#85 Andy I thought I made it clear that pressure needed to be put on the Labour Party, but I didn’t mean making them an offer they couldn’t refuse (particularly as I suspect that they would refuse the offer I am suggesting).
On another point, I didn’t see the BBC news last night, but ITV was utterly horendous. I’ve been around a long time but this was pro-employer propaganda of the worst kind. For what it’s worth I’ve logged a complaint with ITN (very revolutionary, I know!)
Comment by Armchair — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:19 pm
Well Ii look forward to hearing back from Christian h.
Notwithstanding the point made by Rory at #89 that over the last few years BA have been profitable and have reserves, they are a company currently in real difficulties.
Now Christian h has made a number of factually inaccurate statements, ludicrously claiming that most European short haul flights are hops on long haul journeys, and that BA prices are not higher than other carriers, when they simply are.
But he has accused me of repeating management lies, with a false implication that I do not support the BA staff.
Not only has he failed to substantiate what the supposed lies are, but he seems to think that the workforce should ride along the valley of death into the Russian cannons without worrying about whether or not they lose their jobs.
I have neither lied, nor supported managemtn, these are serious accusation to make against a trade union activist.
So it is entirely relevent that thre national secretary of an organisation that he supports, Martin Smith of the SWP, repeated the lies from the ACAS report that Italian employers of IREM at Lyndsey were paid the same as the British workforce, despite the fact that the rank and file trade unionists affected, GMB and UNITE all disputed ACAS’s report, and pointed out that ACAS had not actually checked, and were relying upon false management statements.
Not a single contribution in the SWP’s preconference bulletins criticises martin Smith for repeating management lies, even though these lies were being used to attack workers engaged in a long running dispute.
Now I wouldn’t have brought that up, except that Christian h supports the SWP, and has not criticised martin Smith for repeating managemnt lies, but has now, entirely falsely, claimed that I am spreafing management lies.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:29 pm
#91 “Andy I thought I made it clear that pressure needed to be put on the Labour Party, but I didn’t mean making them an offer they couldn’t refuse (particularly as I suspect that they would refuse the offer I am suggesting).”
No criticism intened of you Armchair, I was sort of agreeing you but wanting to emphasise a different aspect. Sorry if it came over as disagreement. (If we had been face to face you would have seen me nodding in agreement with you while I said it, and there would have been no misunderstanding, bloody internet)
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:31 pm
#92 “I s there any reason why the union cannot hold another ballot.”
They can, but it is a delay; and it will be equally hard to conduct a ballot without problems next time.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:32 pm
Some good points Armchair, I’ve never practised law, but have been a shopfloor union rep and have a small amount of experience.
In this case, it appears the judgement is specifically against the ballot itself. So a hypothetical scenario of workers taking spontaneous and “unofficial” protest action against BA’s imposition of worsening terms and conditions - and not citing the ballot as any form of justification of the action - would be an open issue and not covered by yesterday’s verdict.
One should not assume a court would judge against workers in such an instance, or that an employer will always go to court.
There is also the civil action launched by the union against BA’s impositions - which, it could be argued, place serious doubt as to the lawfulness of BA’s own actions.
Comment by Anonymous — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/17/ba-strike-injunction
Seumas Milne has a good piece on court judgement today.
Comment by The Friendly Lefty — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
#96
Without having read the exact terms of the injunction it is hard to say; but it is possible that the injunction covers only the strike envisaged by the ballot, and that an entirely seperate walk out organised spontaneoulsy by BA staff would be outwith the current injunction.
But UNITE would be forced to very forcibly repudiate such a walk out, and it would be extremely high stakes for the grassroots leadership taking on a combative and litigous employer like BA without the backing of their union.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
#55 Anonymous from your post “This High Court decision represents a momumental defeat for BA workers” i am not sure if i was reading some Daily Mail headline or some ultra left sectarian reactionary opportunist bilge.
The ultra leftist revolutionary defeatist badge of honour 2009 goes to Anonymous. Congratulations!
I dare you to stand up infront of the thousands of BASSA members and tell them it is moumumental defeat. It is no doubt a very upsetting set back but thankfully unlike you, you will find that BASSA members don’t think this is over and Willie Walsh will have a fight on his hands.
The rest of your post is littered with blantantly inaccurate sectarian and opportunist rubbish. The union leadership were not aware of problems with the ballot in advance. What they were aware of was that BA were going to try to injuncted on minor technical grounds. They advised BASSA members of the possibilty of this being up held. BASSA which is organised, militant and lay member led (what every socialist trade unionist dreams of)did not wish to delay and wanted to proceed, the Unite bastard bureacrats respected this.
Unlike some on here and i agree with my friend, Armchair, who have a semi anarchist approach to the law the union leadership know that there has been various judgements this year against trade union strike ballots on the most spurious grounds and management are getting bolder and bolder in challenging and getting class collaboration from their friends in the judiciary.
The challenge was over BA employees who had taken voluntary redundancy during the strike ballot process and left BA. Unite requested details of those leaving from BA who refused to give them siting data protection. The joke is that if they had not balloted those who may have been leaving during the process then BA would have injuncted Unite for this as well and with Mrs Justice Laura Cox been sucessful too. Its a catch 22 situation and the law is clearly and ass and being bourght into disrepute.
Anonymous so you wanted Brian Boyd national secretary of Cabin Crew 89 (who in 1989 broke away from BASSA because they felt they were too militant and formed a scab and BA management backed Union that went into Amicus) with only 1000 members to speak for the 12,000 ex T&G BASSA members?
Is this a case of the ultra left colluding with the right or just more rank ultra left opportunism? By the way Steve Turner is the national secretary for aviation that covers BASSA members and is well known by the membership and has regularly been seen on the media during the dispute and was next to Len McCluskey who was invited by BASSA membership to speak at the huge Sandown meeting that then appeared on You Tube.
Maybe you wanted you mate Jerry Hicks to speak but i hear he has a terrible reputation of doing a runner at meetings and i am sure BASSA members would not appreciate infantile panto stunts or idiots playing opportunist games with them.
As for harking back to an individual going around collecting subs, like the man from the Pru that went out with the arch. I admire you luddite romanticism but most members no longer get pay packets of cash and are paid electronically into their bank account by BACs and pay union membership either by Direct Debit or through pay roll.
What they don’t often do is inform their union of when the change jobs or address. BASSA membership data base was in good shape when they went to ballot and this was not the issue as to why BA won an injunction.
But Anonymous why let the truth get in the way of a sectarian and opportunist story.
Keep up your sterling work of sounding like an outrider for the Daily Mail and keep attacking trade unionists who are trying to take on their employer for your own narrow ultra left sectarian goals.
What a disgrace.
Comment by doh! — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
#94 No problem Andy.
#96 Anonymous- a lot of union officials, including reps, have a better grasp of the practicalities of the law than many solicitors (I am not one at the moment btw).
Comment by Armchair — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:44 pm
#99
“Maybe you wanted you mate Jerry Hicks to speak but i hear he has a terrible reputation of doing a runner at meetings and i am sure BASSA members would not appreciate infantile panto stunts or idiots playing opportunist games with them.”
Doh!
This is a bit disappointing from you.
Firstly, there is no indication that the anoymous poster at #99 is a supporter of Jerry HIcks; and nor has the attitide of HIcks and his supporters to an internal left caucus in UNITE any bearing on his ability to relate to striking workers.
Jerry is a very expereinced shop floor militant, who was a lay union rep at Rolls Royce for many a long year. As such he has more nous and expereince when it comes to relating to ordinary members than some officials.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Doh! For there to be the remotest chance of us being “friends”, you need to substantiate or withdraw your allegation of dishonesty.
Also the personal abuse against Jerry Hicks is a bit silly. You may need to work with him when he wins the GS election.
Comment by Armchair — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
[CONTENT DELETED - ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS A DUPLICATE OF COMMENT #99]
Comment by doh! — 18 December, 2009 @ 12:54 pm
“You have also got no idea about trade union legislation, the judiciary and the government operates. I SHALL SAY THIS VERY SLOWLY SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND. Government makes and enacts laws and the judiciary interprets and applies the law. These executive powers are seperate.”
That’s the most naive comment you’ve made so far. Are you claiming that government never influences how the law is applied? If you want to believe such laughable nonsense then fine but don’t take the rest of us for fools too.
“If Unite publically calls for unofficial and there for illegal strike action then it risks bankqrupting the Union and leaving two million members with no support. Now that would be pure folly and only an idiot would propose and do that. So Ray are you that idiot?”
If you scaremonger enough I suppose you hope that BA workers will back down but the only idiot here is the useful one you make for the government. There are jobs on the line here and all you’re interested in is the rule of law. Fat lot of use you are in defending workers. I’ve got a lot of time for many reformists but sell outs like you really are an embarrassment.
Comment by Ray — 18 December, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
Its the season of good will and i would rather work with people who want to deal with reality and support and organise trade union members than indulge in ultra left sectarian rubbish which is a damaging curse of the left.
So Armchair if i have ever mistakenly accused you of being dishonest then i apologise.
Comment by doh! — 18 December, 2009 @ 1:00 pm
Opps i only put up my post again because i noticed some typos.
Andy sorry to disappoint you but i am pretty sure Anonymous is a Jerry Hicks supporter and it don’t take a brain of Britain to work out some of the sub text of Anons post.
And yes Jerry Hicks may have been a good miltant ex shop steward but i am honestly disappointed by his behaviour to go to he the high commisioner of trade unions to force through a pointless Amicus section of Unite GS ballot which he lost (valid for one year but costing 1 million pounds of members money)after both GEC’s and all Unite members had voted to approve the retirement dates and elections of a single GS in Unite. The whole charade smacks of what BA management have done to BASSA members - use the law to win something on a technicality.
Also i personally witnessed the juvenile behaviour and obviously pre planned walk out by Jerry Hicks at the United Left hustings. Jerry Hicks volunteered to put himself forward as a United Left candidate which was accepted by United Left supporters. Jerry did have to put himself forward and had every right to stand on an independent ticket from the start. He choose not to but then used the situation to pull off an infantile opportunist stage managed stunt which left many at the hustings (some of which would have voted for him) disgusted at his lack of judgement and respect.
Comment by doh! — 18 December, 2009 @ 1:17 pm
Ray are you trying to prove to everyone on here what an idiot you are?
I dislike the use of vulgar language used by some on this site but in this instance if the cap fits then wear it.
Carry on with your delusions of trying to turn what people on here have not ever said or ever remotely implied in to something you think they have said or implied.
You dim wit!
Comment by doh! — 18 December, 2009 @ 1:24 pm
#106
“Opps i only put up my post again because i noticed some typos.”
Fair enough, but as people had already replied to it, ,I thought it misght cause some confusion,
Your meaning was clear even if there were typos there.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
“I dislike the use of vulgar language…”
That’s a rather dishonest comment from someone who descends into insults and abuse in place of a convincing argument. This seems to be your stock in trade whenever anyone disagrees with you. I thought I’d give you a taste of your own medicine in my last post but it really is a waste of time playing your game. I’m sure you have your time occupied attempting to enforce the courts decision among Unite members.
Comment by Ray — 18 December, 2009 @ 1:42 pm
Ray,
If you took the time and i advise the you do and if necessary READ VERY VERY SLOWLY and RE RE READ AGAIN AND AGAIN IN FULL Andy Newman’s and my responses to you about your stupid posts you will see they were full of factual comment and would be seen by anyone with half a brain as measured and convincing argument.
I don’t have a problem with anyone diagreeing with me (Andy Newman is proof of this) what i dislike is idiots who sound off about something they clearly know nothing about. On top of that you have the audacity when challenged to lie and attempt to say that I and others have said things or support things that are clearly not true. What a joke!
Mean while BASSA are regrouping and are going to re ballot as part of a multi faceted strategy to force the nut case Willie Walsh to back down.
Comment by doh! — 18 December, 2009 @ 2:06 pm
Andy (87.): Fair enough, I may have a perception bias. I’ve simply never seen you drag in any organization but the SWP out of the blue. It simply not true that I am the same person as Martin Smith, so what he said can’t possibly make my politics “inconsistent”. You may recall that while I shared the basic analysis of the SWP during the Lindsey dispute, I did not agree with everything they did or said, not by a long shot. So why’d you bring it up? If you want to criticise me, fair enough. But using this as a hook to get one in at the SWP, that’s what baffles me. When you criticise Paddy Garcia, I don’t see you take shots at the SP - and he’s actually a member.
As for profits, you may honestly believe BA is “unprofitable” and actually close to collapse, but that would be because you don’t understand how profits and losses are reported - it’s very malleable. To give an example, United has not reported any profits since 2001. Using this and “bankruptcy protection” they have managed to crush their unions and get rid of their pension obligations - yet they still exist.
I never claimed that BA short haul flights are cheaper than others. It’s simply a fact that they exist primarily to feed intercontinental operations. This has nothing to do with whether the people you meet on them are connecting, it’s about why these routes are served in the first place.
Comment by christian h. — 18 December, 2009 @ 5:06 pm
“If you took the time and i advise the you do and if necessary READ VERY VERY SLOWLY and RE RE READ AGAIN AND AGAIN IN FULL Andy Newman’s and my responses to you about your stupid posts you will see they were full of factual comment and would be seen by anyone with half a brain as measured and convincing argument.”
What a load of tosh. I’ll give you a fact: you’re mixing up supposition with evidence. So far, workers have occupied and gone out on strike in defiance of the law and they have been successful. You’re just reiterating the same line about the union funds being sequestrated if the union backs strikes. You have no more foresight into what will happen than anyone else except you believe your prediction is the correct one. Predictions are not facts but your arrogance blinds you to this fact. Read that last sentence s-l-o-w-l-y just in case you are still confused.
Please spare us the lectures about how you normally act fraternally because you started off sneering right from the start. You’ve already had to apologise to Armchair for you insulting tone. It’s patently obvious that you act like a nasty piece of work towards anyone who points out the gaping holes in your suppositions.
Comment by Ray — 18 December, 2009 @ 6:19 pm
“As for profits, you may honestly believe BA is “unprofitable” and actually close to collapse, but that would be because you don’t understand how profits and losses are reported - it’s very malleable. To give an example, United has not reported any profits since 2001. Using this and “bankruptcy protection” they have managed to crush their unions and get rid of their pension obligations - yet they still exist.”
You may be right Christian but the point is that the whole debate about the profitability of BA is a management diversion to push through cuts. Workers are not in the business of managing capitalism and if the bankers can receive billions in handouts to keep the financial sector afloat then so can BA.
We argue for the nationalisation of the rail system and there’s no reason that the airline industry shouldn’t be nationalised if necessary. The problem is that the neo-liberal mantra of so-called “competition” and “profitability” has been bought by some of the left who accept that workers must pay for the failure of capitalism. If profitability was a criteria in deciding who the government should support then the whole PFI system would be scrapped. For every £1 the private industry puts into PFI the tax payer pays £8.
Profitabilty for neo-liberals means taking over a company, dismanteling it to squeeze as much money out of it as possible and then dumping it. As long as those at the top make a profit they have no concern about sustained development. Our job is to fight against that cynical and destructive behaviour. Unless BA workers take action now they will be crushed. It’s as stark as that.
Comment by Ray — 18 December, 2009 @ 6:35 pm
To interject briefly into the current debate. I personally as a recent graduate with over 20k of student debt and no prospects of employment (heck, I literally can’t even volunteer at the moment, all local charities report they are full due to exceptional levels of unemployment - it’s pretty disheartening to not even be able to offer my skills for free), I find it extremely hard to sympathise with people striking when I believe their minimum wage is at around 32k. I would gladly lose a finger for a job like that at the moment. Does no one else feel this way?
Comment by Sammy — 18 December, 2009 @ 6:37 pm
No Sammy, I don’t believe anyone does.
Comment by christian h. — 18 December, 2009 @ 6:39 pm
Sammy, that’s why recessions are so good for our bosses: They give them so many more desperate people to choose from.
Comment by tony collins — 18 December, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
“Does no one else feel this way?”
Don’t forget that BA workers have been paying taxes to subsidise your education. How will it help your position to have jobs cut and wages reduced at BA? If BA workers managed to successfully defend their jobs and conditions it will mean that it will be much more difficult for other employers to dump people on the dole or make them work for a pittance. Instead to giving billions to bail out rich bankers we need to be rebuilding the economy and protecting jobs and housing.
Comment by Ray — 18 December, 2009 @ 6:58 pm
#112
“It’s simply a fact that they exist primarily to feed intercontinental operations. This has nothing to do with whether the people you meet on them are connecting, it’s about why these routes are served in the first place.”
I find this very hard to beleive, that airlines only serve routes in order to gain intercontinental traffic, For sure, the short haul flights go through the big hubs in order to service inteconnection, but that doesn’t mean that the short haul routes are not in themselves profitable.
After all if Ryan air can make a profit having a plane flying with fares of £50, surely BA makes a profit when they fly a full plane with everyone paying £400.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 7:08 pm
There really is a huge difference in “cost structure” between an airline like Ryan Air, which only flies point-to-point and an airline using hub-and-spokes like BA. Just a couple points (and yes Ray I agree workers aren’t capitalism’s managers, but it’s interesting to see anyway):
1. BA has to fly short routes even if they don’t fill the planes in order to avoid losing long-haul traffic. This is reflected in the passenger load factors, which are around 65% for Europe/UK routes but over 75% for all intercontinental routes (November 09, BA figures). It isn’t too relevant whether BA could make profit if the planes filled, it’s that the short routes aren’t there for their own sake - or at least many of them aren’t. LHR-FRA might be an exception, although since it’s served by so many airlines I doubt it can be run profitably by a big one. By the way, everyone isn’t paying 400 pounds. The few people buying full-price tickets are.
2. Ryan Air doesn’t need to make connections; they can therefore fly out of small, cheap airports. BA can’t do that.
3. Ryan Air flies few aircraft types (possibly only one, if they operate like Southwest), reducing training and service costs.
There’s many factors involved, but it’s not at all surprising that BA can’t profit from routes Ryan Air can profit from. This is not an issue of simply “setting up a low-cost airline” either; big US carriers have done this for years (many of their domestic flights are served by low-cost, union-busting franchise airlines, and they still don’t make a profit on them).
One last point: BA has made large profits over the last decade. I find it very hard to believe they could suddenly be close to collapse after one bad year. I simply don’t think their pronouncements on this should be taken at face value.
Comment by christian h. — 18 December, 2009 @ 7:34 pm
Hi
this really clearly illustrates the problems faced in trying to organise groups of workers especially if the members wish to take industrial action. Even when there is clear support for taking strike action and the union machine is relatively supportive the employer can effectively use the anti trade union laws to put the skids on the whole process.
I have a lot of experience in leading official and unofficial action and have long come to the conclusion that the anti trade union laws were quite an inspired piece of Thatcherite legislation as the correctly identified the achilles heel of the trade union movement in the UK, namely money.
The big 3 unions, UNITE, UNISON and the GMB all suffer the same problem. They have 2 priorities, to finamce and maintain their structures, pay the wages and bills, and secondly finance the Labour Party. So any threat to take away their money and they immediately fold. Simpley put their interests are not in supporting their members fighting the attacks by employers. That is why their key focus has been around recruiting and merging, never around organising. It also explains the disgraceful witch hunts that been used to expell activists.
I don’t have a panacea for this but I think it has to be activists organising on the ground, recruiting stewards, young members, getting them involved in their respective shops branches ect.
For most of my time as a TU activist I’ve had a lot of fun and found it an often rewarding and liberating experience. Unfortunately of late it has felt like very hard work.
I would be very interested in any ideas on how to take things forward. I think the answer must lie with the members as it cannot come from the current leadership.
Thanks
Comment by Tom — 18 December, 2009 @ 8:02 pm
Since the Socialist Party don’t appear to promote themselves on SU anymore I’ll do it for them.
Here’s what they’re saying;
http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/8640
Comment by Eddie Truman — 18 December, 2009 @ 8:21 pm
#120 Christian
T=Your argument makes a lot of assumptions, few of which are necessarily true. There is no reason why the short haul parts of the operation shoud not be profitable, and the fact that they have to link up to the hubs for inter-continental connecions doesn’t dictate the frequency of the service.
Nor does the fact that accountancy conventions hide profits and loss mean that in any particular case a company reporting a loss may not in fact be making a loss.
there has been a serious recession where business travel - which is what BA mainly services - has dramatically dropped off. It is not at all implauasible therefore that they are in trouble, although managemtn may have reasons for exagerating the degree of that trouble.
Generally companies are not incentivised to report much higher losses than they really have becasue that reduces their share value, and makes them susceptible to hostile take over.
if what some of you are saying, that BA is relatively cash rich, then that might be a serious problem. cash rich companies with low operatonal profits or even operational losses, and a struggling share price are very susceptible to take over and asset stripping. Nor can the argument that BA’s cash holdings are required to offset unforseen liabilities be simply dismissed as an accountancy trick.
Now I am far from an expert on BA’s profitablity, but I don’t think that the reported difficluties of BA can simply be dismissed as so much bosses’ propaganda.
Comment by Andy Newman — 18 December, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
Thanks Eddie, I definitely agree with the sentiment and can see no harm in calling on UNITE’s leadership to break the anti TU laws and withold money from the Labour party is no bad thing. Unfortunately I don’t imagine they will listen to the SP, SWP or you and me. The correct political decision but unlikely to be of any immediate practical effect.
Thanks as well Jim, I can appreciate why the left in UNITE are taking that line.
It is a very tough problem to address. Many of my more radical members knee jerk reaction to how UNISON has treated us is to say they want to leave the union. My response is that the union officials may not deserve our time and money but that is not the reason to being in a trade union. We are in it for collectivity, solidarity.
Its a bit like deciding whether to vote Labour in the up and coming election. The vast majority of candidates do not deserve our vote but do we deverve another hit of the Tories? I really don’t fancy that. But there again the objective circumstances that the next government will operate in will probably be of more importance.
I think there has been a bit of a shift in the political landscape though I’m not totally certain what it is.
Honest and comradely discussions help
Thanks
Comment by Tom — 18 December, 2009 @ 9:08 pm